Why I don't read gun magazines

[ericire12]

Its porn! You're not supposed to read the articles

[TAB]

Its porn! You're not supposed to read the articles

but playboy actually has some very intresting articles...

[jaybet]

Porn and descriptions, specs, etc... that's all the mags are ususally good for. You can pick up the trends of the newer models or innovations. If you want real reviews though, you have to go to forums and count...1 against, 10 for...probably a good quality gun. Not always the case though. I've had a brand new Ruger 161 come through and not cycle properly. Sent it back and the factory smith worked it over HARD. Now it works, but how did it get out of the factory in that condition?
Have a Baikal 12 GA over under I bought used. The poop on them is they're not pretty but they're built like a Soviet tank. Spot-on review. Workmanship is rough, but it shoots like a demon and you could probably use it to beat buffalo to death with.

The magazines have sponsors, and money talks. But the pictures are priceless.

[billt]

This is an all natural born train wreck because of the very nature of what exists in these magazines. Which is paid advertising about the same merchandise that is being written about. It is all but impossible to be objective. If say, Savage Arms is a high dollar advertiser in your magazine, and you are doing a write up on their latest rifle which has received a lot of press, you cannot possibly bad mouth the weapon in any way, shape, or form without jeopardizing your financial advertising stake with that company.

Gun companies advertise in gun magazines. Revlon advertises in Cosmopolitan. Cosmo can write an anti gun article and not be hurt just as Guns & Ammo can say Revlon sucks because they support an anti gun position. (I'm just using this as an example. I'm not saying Revlon is anti gun.) But you get the point. It is all but impossible for this situation to change because of the publisher / advertiser relationship.

I subscribe to most of the gun rags. I take the articles with a grain of salt, as far as the praise they seem to bestow on every weapon they test. I absorb the technical facts. Weight, barrel length, rate of twist, cost (MSRP), etc. For example in the newest issue of "Guns & Weapons For Law Enforcement", they just happen to do a writeup on the new Kimber 8400 Police Tactical in .300 Win. Mag. I just bought. I was surprised to read that Kimber test fires every single one, and won't let it out of the factory unless it groups 1/2 MOA or better. I didn't know that, and was quite pleased to read it. For me, who just spent a lot of money on that rifle, that alone was worth the price of the magazine. Most of the gun magazines just keep me current to whats on the market, and what is in the works. For most gun guys it's better reading than what you find in the dentists office while you're waiting for your root canal, and just heard the receptionist say, "We're out of Novocaine!".  Bill T.

[Timothy]

Fishing, hunting, guns, cars, widgits, thingamabobs.....whatever.

Why do hunters poor buck piss on their boots?  I don't know!  I never had any trouble getting a deer without it back in the seventies and there is a lot more deer in the woods today than there were then!  Someone said it works in a magazine!

I have five tackle boxes of fishing gear that I've never caught a darn thing with!  Why did I buy it?  Because In-Fisherman said it was the latest, greatest doo-dad to catch that lunker with.

It's hype, nothing more!  I've fallen for it over the years myself.  It takes a lifetime of experience to form your own opinion on something so we believe what we choose to believe.

Today, I'm a bit more stingy with my money.  It's funny, now that I can afford to spend it, I'm more frugal than ever!

[Sponsor]

[billt]

Today, I'm a bit more stingy with my money.  It's funny, now that I can afford to spend it, I'm more frugal than ever!

As my mother once told me when I was a teen, whining about how little money I made at the time. She said, "It's not what you make. It's what you do with it after you made it." How very true.  Bill T.

[crusader rabbit]

Boat mags are even worse.(atleast they have ideas for improvments)

For several years in the late '90s and early '00s I wrote for a couple well-known boating magazines and I would tend to agree with TAB.  When I was asked to review a new boat, I knew I had to include some minor criticism, but nothing that would negatively impact the marketability.  I could say something like:  The non-skid decking could be more aggressive.  I could not say:  The morning dew on the Teflon deck will cause you to bust your a$$ and likely throw you overboard.  It all came down to the wording.  I got pretty good (I thought) at including the truth, but it was carefully nuanced.

The actual fact of life is that sponsors want good reviews.  If they don't get them, they take their ad revenue to one of the other rags that have lower standards.  And the biggest, most successful rags were the worst offenders.

That has to work the same way in the gun mags, too.  It's simple economics.

Truthfully submitted for your consideration,

Crusader

[philw]

also gaming

http://www.news.com.au/technology/lads-mag-editor-blows-whistle-on-video-games/story-e6frfro0-1225850507467

A MAGAZINE editor who claims he was sacked for posting part of an internal email on Facebook says he was blowing the whistle on video game companies pressuring publications for favourable coverage.

Former Zoo Weekly deputy entertainment editor Toby McCasker last month posted on Facebook part of an email that seemed to show a game maker demanding a positive spin on its latest title.

The email was allegedly sent by a publicist for Rockstar Games to staff at the magazine, concerning coverage of the company's new title Red Dead Redemption.

"This is the biggest game we've done since GTA IV, and is already receiving Game of the Year 2010 nominations from specialists all around the world," it read.

"Can you please ensure Toby's article reflects this — he needs to respect the huge achievement he's writing about here."

Rockstar is one of the world's biggest gaming companies with franchises including Grand Theft Auto and Max Payne.

The post on Facebook has since been taken down and McCasker has been dismissed from the magazine.

McCasker told news.com.au the email was an example of growing pressure from game companies for favourable media coverage.

"I did not sign up to become a journalist to write advertorials masquerading as editorial," he said.

"This 'cash for comment' culture that is fast becoming the status quo within print media bothers me a lot."

Zoo editor Paul Merrill would not comment on McCasker's dismissal but did say he was unaware of any bid to influence the magazine's reviews.

"It'd be wrong for me to comment as to why someone is dismissed," he said.

"I've never known any game maker to ask for a positive review and they've certainly never received it."

Rockstar Games Australia said today: "We are not clear on what the story is here. We always try to present our games in the most compelling way to media and fans alike and of course we, like every other video game publisher in Australia or anywhere else for that matter, want to have our games seen in a positive light."

It is understood McCasker had earlier received two official warnings about his behaviour.

Threats to pull advertising

McCasker's claim is not the first time the game industry has faced allegations of putting pressure on publications to provide favourable coverage.

In 2007 the US editorial director of gaming website GameSpot left the site suddenly after running a negative review of game Kane & Lynch: Dead Men.

A large promotional campaign for the game was running on GameSpot at the time the review was published, leading to speculation the game's publisher Eidos had threatened to pull its ads.

Veteran gaming journalist David Wildgoose, who currently edits gaming blog Kotaku Australia, said threats from game makers to pull advertisements over unfavourable coverage did occur but not very often.

"I've heard of and been directly involved in situations where an advertiser has threatened to pull its spend, usually over a review score they perceive as below expectation," he said.

"But such occasions are infrequent and often the threat is never followed through."

Wildgoose, who has more than 15 years experience as a gaming journalist and editor for print and online, said most game makers valued independent coverage.

"If a games website or magazine started writing for its advertisers, it would lose credibility with its readers. And without those readers, it's not attractive for those advertisers," he said.

"I'd like to think games companies understand that and I think most of them do."

Update (April

Zoo editor Paul Merrill has issued a statement to Kotaku US about McCasker's sacking.