http://www.shootingwire.com/archived/2009-07-24_sw.htmlYesterday, word that another television sports network is turning down advertising - at least if firearms are in the commercials. A major retailer was turned down when it tried to buy advertising inside the NASCAR Truck Series. The reason given? Their commercials didn't offer guns for sale, but they showed guns being used in hunting. That, apparently, was unacceptable to the network.
A firearms company had already told me they were denied sponsorship for a truck and driver in that same racing series. Again, it wasn't NASCAR opposing the sponsorship, it was the network broadcasting the race.
In today's dwindling advertising climate, it's unusual to hear those sorts of stories. In a enthusiast category that -at least on the surface - is an almost exact match demographically, it's downright strange.
Marketing executives in the outdoor industry tell me they're regularly approached with opportunities to market to racing fans. As it was related to me, motorsports marketers "shout from the rooftops" that the motorsport fan and the outdoor enthusiast are one in the same.
So what's the reluctance? More than one network has a simple rule: no guns. If it's gun-related, it's unacceptable, even if the shooters, hunters and motorsport fans are one in the same.
Having spent more than two decades in network television, I can say a lot of really nasty things about television and the executives that thrive there, but turning down ads, especially those that appeal to your existing viewers, seems a bit crazy.
My sources are solid, but the network(s) in question have yet to respond to my inquiries about their policies about acceptable advertising, so I'm not going to name any network at this time.
http://www.shootingwire.com/archived/2009-07-27_sw.htmlLast Friday, I mentioned that we were tracking a story regarding cable networks that were not accepting advertising from companies associated with firearms. Several of our readers have responded to my having not named the network(s) in question
There's a reason behind that decision: fairness.
There's a very fine line between reporting and rabble-rousing when it comes to positions on emotionally-charged issues.
To cover a story accurately mandates dispassionately giving both sides the opportunity to present their position. That's presenting all the facts. At that point, the readers can make their own decision regarding the story.
At this point, I can confirm advertising, sponsorship and programming have been denied on at least two networks, but those networks have yet to respond to formal requests for either comment or clarification.
When we have responses, we will report the entire story, including naming the networks in question and the executives who decide those questions. At that point, our reporting will be neither vague nor equivocating. But it will be dispassionate and factual.
For those of you who feel that's inadequate, my apologies. Reporting news involves either keeping your opinions to yourself or recognizing any possible bias and addressing it factually.
It would be very simple to start a backlash campaign against these companies if they are denying advertising because of their personal positions on firearms. In fact, it would be perfectly reasonable for our readers and their viewers to make their objections known, but it would be inappropriate for us to kickoff such a campaign. That's one of the prime factors separating our services from a myriad of others.
We will report the facts and continue to clearly identify and separate our personal positions from those reports. The reasoning behind that is simple: we believe that readers are entirely capable of reading the facts as presented, and making their own decisions. That's a position that many of the supposed "mainstream" news outlets have vacated, but we will not. Like journalists that came before us, we believe the American public, when presented with the facts, will make the correct decision.
To be Continued
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
