Reporters

[Monkeyleg]

This afternoon I received a call from a reporter/columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. He was looking for comments on CCW, the "gun show loophole" law, "assault weapons," and all sorts of other gun issues.

I have no idea where he's going with this, which makes me uncomfortable. Usually reporters will say that they're doing a story on this-or-that.

I'm always tempted to tell them that I don't believe in any gun control laws. But that makes our group's volunteers look like kooks if I'm speaking on their behalf.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

On the whole, if the issue is sensitive, I try not to opine verbally.

If, however, I can't get the questions in writing, I ask, "you mind if I record this conversation, so we don't have a misunderstanding later?"

I also question the questions.

"I'm sorry, did you say 'loophole'? You'll have to clarify. All the dealer sales at the local shows involve a form 4473 and a NICS check. Please elaborate?"

"I'm sorry, 'assault weapons'? I'm not sure to what you're referring. There haven't been any assault rifles for sale for years. You'll have to clarify that."

"CCW? What would you like to know? I can fill you in on the background checks, fingerprinting, photographing, and training required. Where shall I start?"

Loaded questions are a real favorite of these guys, and their friendliness is as real as their sincerity.

Can you recount some of your conversation?

Inquiring minds wanna know . . .

 

[AJ Dual]

ArfinGreebly's tactics is what I'd probably use in an affable and "helpful" way.

Yep. No loophole, all licensed dealers do background checks and federal paperwork just like in the stores, and private sales between non-felons of age are legal anywhere in the state, there's nothing special about it being done at a gun-show.

(Fully automatic) Assault weapons have been banned since the the 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act was signed by President Regan. All the legal one's in private hands are owned by "licensed" (I know, no such thing as a "machine gun license", it's an NFA tax-stamp, but this is a mass-comm major we're speaking to, so use small words...) machine gun collectors who've had permission from their local chief LEO, and paid a $200 tax to the Treasury Dept. Perhaps you're confusing assault weapons with semi-automatic military styled rifles?

Concealed carry? That not one of the 40+ states that have shall-issue licenses have seen fit to revoke it due to a nearly complete lack, statistically speaking, of any criminality on the part of the permit holders?

I guess the only answer is to carefully undermine the premise implicit in the questions. At worst, you'll give the reporter nothing to grab onto, and they'll go elsewhere, or they'll get the story killed by their editor.

 

[Standing Wolf]

When all else fails, speak the truth.

In full seriousness: I'd have to assume anyone working for that so-called "news" paper is a leftist extremist, so I'd speak slowly, use short words, and explain details carefully and repetitiously as needed; I also wouldn't be at all surprised if my words were twisted.

 

[tank mechanic]

Monkeyleg why were you called? What group are you a part of?

 

[AJ Dual]

Monkeyleg is/was the treasurer & wore most of the hats for the WCCA, Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association. There are few in Wisconsin that have done as much to fight for RKBA as he has.

Now he is board member emeritus/founder of the newly formed WCPS, Wisconsin Citizens for Personal Security, as we retrench to continue the fight for shall-issue carry in Wisconsin with an expanded organization with more people sharing in the work and responsibility.

 

[1911JMB]

There is really only one point that needs to be made. If a shooter is approached by a reporter for an interview, he or she should feel up to the task of doing it, or he or she should decline. If you don't think you can make gun owners look good, you probably can't. If a guy at a gun shop comes off as a bumbling idiot in camo, it does nothing good for the RKBA.

Another thing to add is that if you are doing an interview, and you screw up, stop mid sentence if you have to and start over. Reporters like good footage, and if they can make a good story of making you look like a fool, they damn well will.

 

[MBane666]

As always, anything i can do to help, email me.

i ran the NSSF Media Education Program, have handled media relations/crisis communications for the firearms industry and taugh executives how to deal with the media (which I was for 30 years).

Michael B

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Don't forget to enlighten this guy that although the keeping and bearing of arms is not supposed to be infringed, the use of guns is open for reasonable governance, and misuse can certainly be made unlawful and punishable. Avoid using the word "regulate" when talking law, but be sure to explain the true meaning of the word.

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Oh, and you might want to take him to a gun range and instruct him in the safe handling of arms.

You might have a chance to add an ally to your ranks.

Woody

 

[Monkeyleg]

Thanks for all of the replies.

After doing newspaper and radio inteviews for the past 5+ years, I think I hold my own. I've had occasion to have questions come out of left field, but usually not.

Some interviews have been downright hostile, and I ended them quickly, as it was obvious what the "reporter" was looking for.

What I can't figure out about this one is what the reporter was looking to glean.

Standing Wolf, the truth is always the right way to go. Try to lie, and a dogged reporter will find out otherwise.

What's still bugging me about this is why this reporter wanted comments about CCW in Wisconsin. When he asked for my assessment of our chances, I told him flat out that our only near-term chance rests with the supreme court, that our next chance will be the 2008 elections, and after that our next best chance would be the 2010 elections.

Anybody with any knowledge of the political situation in Wisconsin would agree with that statement.

He also told me that Democrat Senator Jeff Plale (a friend of ours) had said pretty much the same thing. Plale also said that it's only a matter of time before Wisconsin goes shall-issue. Jeff is absolutely right. He's also been grateful for the financial and grassroots support that he received from the NRA and from our group before the primaries when he was facing a tough opponent. I think that message that Democrats who support us will get help when they're in crisis sent a signal.

The reporter asked about Democrat support, and I told him that there are many Democrats in the legislature who support us, but that Jim Doyle has made this a partisan issue. I further explained that it's my opinion that, for Doyle, this is really an idealogical issue, given his lifelong record on gun issues, but that he was forcing Democrats to take sides.

The reporter seemed taken back when I said that if we had any other governor--Democrat or Republican--Wisconsin would have a shall-issue bill passed into law by now, as there's so much support.

So why the interest in an issue that's going nowhere in the immediate future?

 

[SMMAssociates]

I've also heard it said that a reporter may twist the truth or quote you in ways that are either quite out of context or something you didn't say at all.

Keep a tape recorder of your own going too....

A friend of mine came up with:

Say nothing.

Deny everything.

Demand proof.

(I don't think he reads this board. But he should....)

It might make a bit of sense to check out the reporter first - for a tendency to be criminal and terrorist friendly, and such. If you're not happy with the reporter's past work, you probably should decline. "So-and-so declined comment" may sound better (and be somewhat more irrefutable) than "our reporter was told that so-and-so's ten-year-old daughter carries a 1911 to school."

Regards,

 

[Waitone]

Dick, you do record your interviews, right???????

Maybe your "journalist" is doing an "in-depth" story on <insert gun control angle of choice>.

 

[antsi]

I was a photography intern at a newspaper long ago, and have had some dealings with news media since, and the same observation seems to hold up with time. Reporters aren't quite precisely dumb, they aren't quite precisely evil, and they don't always mean to tell lies... but the way their game works, they are very likely to spread stupidity lies and evil.

There are only really about 8 or 10 different news stories. The facts of each story may be slightly different, but almost all news stories fall into one of 8 or 10 basic story lines. Whatever facts the reporter can glean from any given situation, he/she will try to cram in to one of the 8 or 10 standard story templates. If it can't be hammered into one of the templates, it isn't news.

For instance, I used to work in a hospital in Illinois where we had three sets of triplets in three days. The reporters came around having already decided this was a "cute babies, aawww!" story. The facts were different - all these moms had had terrible problems in their pregnancies and all the babies were in intensive care. Didn't matter - they found the one baby that was doing the best and had the least number of tubes and wires stuck in it, and got lots and lots of cute footage of that one baby. They talked to all the moms for 2-3 hours, and were able to get two three-second sound bites that fit in with the "cute babies, aawww!" story line. So, that night everyone watching local TV heard the happy news about the nine cute wonderful little bundles of joy and their proud happy parents.

I really don't think the reporters were trying to lie. They just have been programmed to think in certain set ways, and they will find facts to fill in the blanks and make news come out the way it's supposed to.

Unfortunately, one of the standard news stories is "Eeek! Guns! Scary!"
In your position, you just need to be really really sure you don't give them any facts or quotes that make it easier for them to produce an "Eeek! Guns! Scary!" story. Look up other "Eeek! Guns! Scary!" stories and see what kinds of factoids they like to put in them, and when the reporters call you, make really really sure you don't give them anything like that.

There is one other kind of news story. It is very rare, but occasionally an intrepid reporter will pull one of these out. This story is called "Surprise!" and it is used when a story comes along that is precisely the opposite of one of the standard news story lines.

For example, in my hospital situation, a really good reporter might have done a story that said "Three sets of triplets... sounds cute and happy, right? Surprise! It's actually very scary and could turn out very sad!" In our situation, this didn't happen. But it could have happened, theoretically.

It would be nice to get some "surprise!" stories printed about RKBA, but it just doesn't seem to happen very often.

 

[bogie]

Of course it may be interesting to keep injecting the phrase "like the rest of the country" occasionally...

 

[FireBreather01]

My guess is that the Journal/Sentinel is going to be running some stories, or perhaps a series, on the spike in Milwaukee's violence - especially considering the 3 most recent daytime murders. Since Pimentel came on board, not only has their rag taken a decidely leftist turn, which is kind of like making water somehow wetter - and they've actually pulled it off, they also seem intent on winning a Pulitzer - which is why they run these exhaustive, and almost meaningless, series of articles on a variety of 'social ills'. And typical of libs, they point out problem after problem and their only solution to it is to throw more and more money at whatever problem they are currently addressing.

Somehow they'll end up blaming guns, at least in part, as a cause of this surge of violence and while they're busy pretending to be 'balanced' they'll take even the most circumspective comments from gun-rights advocates and make us somehow look foolish.

The real problem is Milwaukee is endemic socialism and an absolute dearth of leadership.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Thanks for all the replies.

I don't record the conversations, although I should invest in a recorder. So far, the only reporter to actually quote me as saying something I did not was from Shooting Industry News, and on a completely different subject. Nothing harmful, but it surprised me.

FireBreather01, I suspect you're right. We have the bill in the legislature to require background checks on private sales in Milwaukee County. This reporter may be doing some advance work on gun issues before the paper goes all out running stories about shootings to help get support for the bill.

One of my shortcomings is that I don't talk in soundbites, so the points I want to make usually aren't printed.