Hi kids;
I don't believe I've ever mentioned anyone's name, FWIW. Having said that, let me say that we are all involved in the great rite of capitalism. We all compete for limited resources — viewers and advertising dollars — and we all compete in multiple arenas, including through the shows themselves, through the Internet in its various forms, in speaking engagements and behind the scenes to the industry itself.
As a rule, I tend to favor the public arena, because I came up through journalism and back-room wheeling and dealing are an anathema to me. I much prefer a "what you see is what you get" universe. I do not circulate "slam letters" in the industry outlining my competition's faults, nor will I allow such to be circulated in my or my shows names. I have never dis'sed my competition in the back rooms. My broadcast and Internet shows' policies are public — I do not charge a fee or expenses for us to come to film; you do not have to be a sponsor to be mentioned on my shows (although I love my sponsors!); I and other people on my shows will always disclose our relationships within the industry...you have a right to know who's paying me to talk.
As much as possible — and it is less so since the InterMedia shows moved to a different network — I let the other producers know what I plan to film, because that way the viewers get the broadest view of the culture...there are 400 some-odd hunting shows, and there are fewer than 10 gun shows, even though according to the recent NSSF omnibus study on the future of hunting and the shooting sports, the hunting and shooting sports market are essentially the same size, with the shooting sports side growing (43% of the market has hunted and shot in the last 2 years; 43% have shot in the last 2 years; 14% have only hunted in the last 2 years).
I occasionally take pot shots (usually on the podcast, which is the most free-wheeling of my media products) at other shows — most of those guys are friends of mine, and in the case of Mark Keefe, Tom Gresham, Craig Boddington and Garry James, good friends of mine — and they can give as good as they get. And let's face it...we are not curing cancer here. Fore the most part we are talking about recreational fun with firearms...
One of the reasons I have been a success in many of my endeavors is that I have a somewhat irreverent world view, and that is unlikely to change. It puzzles me that oftentimes we have become so sensitive about even mild sarcasm and humor. When we choose to step into the public arena — and it is a choice; nobody made us put ourselves before the public — we accept that we rightly become targets. Getting dinged — sometimes getting flayed alive — come with the territory. There is currently a forum where a regular poster insists that "Michael Bane" is a pseudonym for a Washington antigun lobbyist...and he can prove it! Cool! I have neighbors who worry a lot about aliens, too.
Am I occasionally over the top? Am I sometimes offensive? Do I sometimes have to step back and apologize for my excesses? Absolutely! But I would also like to point out that I am the most reachable person working in this niche...if you ask me a question here, or on the blog, or in person, I'll do my best to answer it. And I do pay attention to what you guys say...if you think I'm to harsh in my criticism of other shows, maybe I am and it's something I'll consider.
While I appreciate that some people like Mythbusters' lab coat knock-offs, I happen to find them funny and a little silly...for exactly the reasons I have stated...machines generally should be tested in the context they're designed for. I can design a torture test that every gun in the world will fail...it's called a cutting torch. I did do a torture test once for SG — Paul Erhardt smacked a Sig 226 with an aluminum baseball bat and the gun still fired. It looked cool on camera, but I decided never to do that kind of testing again because I wasn't sure what it really told me about the gun. There's an apocryphal story out there of my first encounter with a certain polymer-framed service pistol...the factory rep while speaking to a group of police armorers made a big point that one could "literally throw this gun against that concrete wall — literally! — and it's 100%!" When it came my turn to handle the gun...well, you can probably guess what happened, which was followed by much shouting and laughter. The point in truth is that throwing the gun full force against a concrete block was was an unfair test...depending on how the gun hits the wall and with what force, something is likely to break. What the rep should have said, literally, is that the gun had been drop-tested to 5X the required height with no problems whatsoever. I suspect that with a little work and the right sauce, I could totally ruin my Ruger LCP on my BBQ grill, which doesn't actually mean anything unless I'm spending a lot of time myself inside BBQ grills, or perhaps on the surface of Mercury.
As far as the appropriateness within the context of the gun culture of anything I say or write, please be aware that I am in regular, high-level communications with the other media professionals in the field. I am a gadfly, a role I am particularly well suited for, if I say so myself!
Finally, I would like to point out the slogan of the Michael Blog, offending people of all stripes since 2003: "Warning! I fling poo!"
I do, too.
Michael B
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
