Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #1 01-07-2014, 06:05 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?_r=0

Quote:

Banished for Questioning the Gospel of Guns

By RAVI SOMAIYA
Published: January 4, 2014

BARRY, Ill. — The byline of Dick Metcalf, one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists, has gone missing. It has been removed from Guns & Ammo magazine, where his widely-read column once ran on the back page. He no longer stars on a popular television show about firearms. Gun companies have stopped flying him around the world and sending him the latest weapons to review.

In late October, Mr. Metcalf wrote a column that the magazine titled “Let’s Talk Limits,” which debated gun laws. “The fact is,” wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air.

Just days after the column appeared, Mr. Metcalf said, his editor called to tell him that two major gun manufacturers had said “in no uncertain terms” that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors, the company that publishes Guns & Ammo and co-produces his TV show, if he continued to work there. He was let go immediately.

“I’ve been vanished, disappeared,” Mr. Metcalf, 67, said in an interview last month on his gun range here, about 100 miles north of St. Louis, surrounded by snow-blanketed fields and towering grain elevators. “Now you see him. Now you don’t.”

He is unsure of his next move, but fears he has become a pariah in the gun industry, to which, he said, he has devoted nearly his entire adult life.

His experience sheds light on the close-knit world of gun journalism, where editors and reporters say there is little room for nuance in the debate over gun laws. Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications — often under pressure from advertisers — excommunicate them.

More.

MTI · #2 01-07-2014, 06:14 PM

Who Didn't See This Coming?

Duck hunters rejoice! Mallards, be afraid, be very afraid.

he pistol and one of the rifles have military-style designs with large capacity magazines holding at least 25 rounds. The rifle has some of the features of an assault rifle, but with a relatively low .22 caliber.

aklim · #3 01-07-2014, 06:21 PM

What's your point? You can talk First Amendment Rights all day long but here is the hard cold fact. You come out against my business and I won't support you. Imagine this. If I were to come out as a gay and black hating Dem, do you think I will get much support from liberals? Same thing. You say anything against your employer and you are out.

I agree you have the right to say that my company sucks. However, there is NOTHING that says I have to employ you, is there? Or are you trying to say that liberals hold themselves and actually behave at a higher standard? Know many gay groups that will give money to a group whose sole purpose is to curtail their rights? As long as I give you money, you are my employee, like it or not. You ARE beholden to me. If that bothers you, I am truly sorry. You can take your act and go WITHOUT my money. You either toe the line or I find someone who will. It IS that simple. My money is not free money. It is all going by the NILIF principle. If you haven't figured it out and need Mr Metcalf to show you that you cannot bite the hand that feeds you, there is nothing anyone can say that will help you. This isn't about gun journalism. This is about the employer-employee relationship. You don't badmouth your employer and you keep your job. Badmouth the boss and you are out. Few things are that simple. When my boss and I disagree in his office, that is fine. In public, I need to find another job yesterday. If I feel I can no longer agree with my boss publicly, it is time for us to go our separate ways. You can't have it both ways.

elchivito · #4 01-07-2014, 06:57 PM

I read about that recently. I liked his columns a lot. Where's the indignant "free speech" outrage from the Duck Dynasty supporting crowd? Not a murmur is heard.
Gun mags, like the NRA, are in the gun companies' pockets. If this isn't proof I don't know what is.

Botnst · #5 01-07-2014, 07:04 PM

I thought his column was boring and rarely read it. In fact, I didn't know he was gone.

aklim · #6 01-07-2014, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

I read about that recently. I liked his columns a lot. Where's the indignant "free speech" outrage from the Duck Dynasty supporting crowd? Not a murmur is heard.

Gun mags, like the NRA, are in the gun companies' pockets. If this isn't proof I don't know what is.

You have the right to free speech. You can say what you want. I also have the right to not sponsor you if you say something against my company. Show me that Jews will sponsor a Nazi group.

Since you are such a champion of free speech, would you rail against those that wanted to can Fuzzy, the golfer whose people like KMart and Dunlop dropped him for his remarks against Tiger Woods? How about Don Imus? Bottom line is you said something against me or what image I choose to perceive. You have the right. I ALSO have the right to limit my sponsorship.

cmac2012 · #7 01-07-2014, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

What's your point? You can talk First Amendment Rights all day long but here is the hard cold fact. You come out against my business and I won't support you. Imagine this. If I were to come out as a gay and black hating Dem, do you think I will get much support from liberals? Same thing. You say anything against your employer and you are out.

I agree you have the right to say that my company sucks. However, there is NOTHING that says I have to employ you, is there? Or are you trying to say that liberals hold themselves and actually behave at a higher standard? Know many gay groups that will give money to a group whose sole purpose is to curtail their rights? As long as I give you money, you are my employee, like it or not. You ARE beholden to me. If that bothers you, I am truly sorry. You can take your act and go WITHOUT my money. You either toe the line or I find someone who will. It IS that simple. My money is not free money. It is all going by the NILIF principle. If you haven't figured it out and need Mr Metcalf to show you that you cannot bite the hand that feeds you, there is nothing anyone can say that will help you. This isn't about gun journalism. This is about the employer-employee relationship. You don't badmouth your employer and you keep your job. Badmouth the boss and you are out. Few things are that simple. When my boss and I disagree in his office, that is fine. In public, I need to find another job yesterday. If I feel I can no longer agree with my boss publicly, it is time for us to go our separate ways. You can't have it both ways.

The point is that the gun toting community sees it their way only and always. Anything that smells of moderation is treated like the devil itself. IOW, gripped with fanaticism.

You display the hyperbole. The guy in NO WAY said anyone's company sucked. Read the article first.

cmac2012 · #8 01-07-2014, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I thought his column was boring and rarely read it. In fact, I didn't know he was gone.

Well I guess that settles the matter.

Idle · #9 01-07-2014, 08:02 PM

I smell a TV show for this guy in the vein of Top Gear where the show is not supported by gun makers, perhaps by auto company or outdoor gear companies.

If he were free to test guns and give a 100% unbiased review and make all the snide comments he wanted to about them he could be the guy that all the gun makers fear. The gun makers have no power over him but they do over the publications they support, so if he could survive outside of the publication he could become the last word on if a gun was any good and why.

And if gun fans did not like what he had to say they would be free to turn the channel.

Hatterasguy · #10 01-07-2014, 08:19 PM

He is the kind of fudd the anti's want to use to split us apart. I'm glad to see fudd talk is not tolerated, as it should not be.

We need to stand together or like the UK and many other countries we will be divided and fall. First they go after the EBR's, than the pistols, than oh what that Remmington 700 deer rifle is now a "sniper" rifle and regulated, than comes the "assault" shot guns.

Hatterasguy · #11 01-07-2014, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idle

I smell a TV show for this guy in the vein of Top Gear where the show is not supported by gun makers, perhaps by auto company or outdoor gear companies.

If he were free to test guns and give a 100% unbiased review and make all the snide comments he wanted to about them he could be the guy that all the gun makers fear. The gun makers have no power over him but they do over the publications they support, so if he could survive outside of the publication he could become the last word on if a gun was any good and why.

And if gun fans did not like what he had to say they would be free to turn the channel.

Their are several very popular gear review channels on Youtube that don't get their money from any manufactures.

Idle · #12 01-07-2014, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Their are several very popular gear review channels on Youtube that don't get their money from any manufactures.

They also don't have any network or distributor support. If you want to be successful you have to have at least 300,000 people a week tuning in and to get that you have to be more than informative. You have to be entertaining.

YouTube has too much clutter and it is impossible to get a viewer invested in the show. If you can't get someone to plan on seeing you every week you have no way of telling advertisers the demo you are going after and that makes it impossible to set rates for commercials.

Yes, its' complicated, but if you like dealing with millions of details it is also a lot of fun.

And I have seen a number of gear type spots on YouTube. They all need writers and directors to make them snap, and without the snap all you have is a long string of facts that could be gathered from any number of sources.

Botnst · #13 01-07-2014, 09:12 PM

I don't give a damn that magazines that advertise guns listens to their advertisers.

I mean, imagine a fishing magazine unconcerned with what their columnists say about fishing; or a sports magazine not concerned about what their columnists say about sports; or a plumbing trade magazine not concerned about what their columnists say about plumbing.

It's a non-issue.

Dang.

Idle · #14 01-07-2014, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I don't give a damn that magazines that advertise guns listens to their advertisers.

I mean, imagine a fishing magazine unconcerned with what their columnists say about fishing; or a sports magazine not concerned about what their columnists say about sports; or a plumbing trade magazine not concerned about what their columnists say about plumbing.

It's a non-issue.

Dang.

I can easily agree with this statement, but the matter at hand has to do with what appears to be an overreaction to a guy saying maybe some gun regulations have a place in our modern society.

Getting death threats for stating an opinion? That's a bit more direct than an advertiser pulling an ad.

pawoSD · #15 01-07-2014, 11:40 PM

Does no one find it concerning that a bunch of gun owning readers of said magazine felt it ok to send death threats to someone for publishing an opinion? People sending death threats to someone in a magazine are not mentally fit to be owners of a weapon in the first place.