If you take money to write about a product, I assume you are biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TCinVA

Lots of people have industry ties of one sort or another. You don't get to question their motives or honesty on that basis alone.

---

Sure, you do. If I take money from Colt and then write about Colt or shoot their 1911 for a year and blog about it, you honestly think the money played no factor in what I wrote? Or even played a factor in what gun I chose to feature in a year-long series? Does anyone think Colt pays people to write negative stories about their guns?

Once you start accepting money to write about a product, your writing is immediately suspect and can't be taken seriously.

If you want to make it even worse, don't disclose from whom you've received compensation. Take Caleb's blog, for example. As best I can tell, he takes money to write about certain companies and products. However, he and his employees may also write about products without any support from the manufacturer. But I wouldn't know because he doesn't appear to be upfront about who has paid him money and who hasn't. (Maybe there's some fine print on his blog where he discloses this, but I haven't seen it.) Therefore I just dismiss whatever he says, since I can't know where his bias lays.

It's pretty simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pup town

Sure, you do. If I take money from Colt and then write about Colt or shoot their 1911 for a year and blog about it, you honestly think the money played no factor in what I wrote? Or even played a factor in what gun I chose to feature in a year-long series? Does anyone think Colt pays people to write negative stories about their guns?

Once you start accepting money to write about a product, your writing is immediately suspect and can't be taken seriously.

If you want to make it even worse, don't disclose from whom you've received compensation. Take Caleb's blog, for example. As best I can tell, he takes money to write about certain companies and products. However, he and his employees may also write about products without any support from the manufacturer. But I wouldn't know because he doesn't appear to be upfront about who has paid him money and who hasn't. (Maybe there's some fine print on his blog where he discloses this, but I haven't seen it.) Therefore I just dismiss whatever he says, since I can't know where his bias lays.

It's pretty simple.

---

Bias doesn't equal being dishonest. Pesonaly, I'm skeptical of laws that restrict individual rights. This is a form of bias. Whenever I read such a law, I automatically look for faults before considering the merits. Does this make anything I write about these laws dishonest?

I assume every reviewer has bias that I don't know about whether it be compensation, personal investment, or simple brand loyalty. This doesn't mean I discount everything they say or write.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pup town

But I wouldn't know because he doesn't appear to be upfront about who has paid him money and who hasn't. (Maybe there's some fine print on his blog where he discloses this, but I haven't seen it.) Therefore I just dismiss whatever he says, since I can't know where his bias lays.

It's pretty simple.

---

If there's a company out there paying directly for reviews, I want in on that, because it'd sure beat getting the chance to maybe buy a crap gun at factory cost. (Or sometimes even as a freebie!) Woo! Where do I sign for that sweet action?

"I shot this malfunctioning P.O.S. Blastomatic 2000 for two months, enduring the scorn of my friends at the range, and all I got was this lousy tee shirt and 40% off MSRP."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pup town

Sure, you do. If I take money from Colt and then write about Colt or shoot their 1911 for a year and blog about it, you honestly think the money played no factor in what I wrote? Or even played a factor in what gun I chose to feature in a year-long series? Does anyone think Colt pays people to write negative stories about their guns?

Once you start accepting money to write about a product, your writing is immediately suspect and can't be taken seriously.

If you want to make it even worse, don't disclose from whom you've received compensation. Take Caleb's blog, for example. As best I can tell, he takes money to write about certain companies and products. However, he and his employees may also write about products without any support from the manufacturer. But I wouldn't know because he doesn't appear to be upfront about who has paid him money and who hasn't. (Maybe there's some fine print on his blog where he discloses this, but I haven't seen it.) Therefore I just dismiss whatever he says, since I can't know where his bias lays.

It's pretty simple.

---

So, just a generalized dismissal of literally everything on that blog? Has Caleb never written an article that criticizes anything? What is your tipping point? Ammo? Holsters? Banner ads from a gun dealer? Manufacturer's ads that you do not get to choose (deal with the advertising company, we have it in place on this forum)? Shooting at a manufacturer's range day? Be specific.

Do you have a tipping point or is it just a simplistic "I won't read anything that has an advertisement on the page nor will I read anything from anyone who's ever made money in the in the gun industry?" Or is this is just a chance to sneer and get in a coupla jabs?

Train wreck in 3,2,1... http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/us...mb_popcorn.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pup town

Sure, you do. If I take money from Colt and then write about Colt or shoot their 1911 for a year and blog about it, you honestly think the money played no factor in what I wrote? Or even played a factor in what gun I chose to feature in a year-long series? Does anyone think Colt pays people to write negative stories about their guns?

Once you start accepting money to write about a product, your writing is immediately suspect and can't be taken seriously.

If you want to make it even worse, don't disclose from whom you've received compensation. Take Caleb's blog, for example. As best I can tell, he takes money to write about certain companies and products. However, he and his employees may also write about products without any support from the manufacturer. But I wouldn't know because he doesn't appear to be upfront about who has paid him money and who hasn't. (Maybe there's some fine print on his blog where he discloses this, but I haven't seen it.) Therefore I just dismiss whatever he says, since I can't know where his bias lays.

It's pretty simple.

---

You just wasted lots of effort to tell us you're not going to read Caleb's blog anymore. Drama llama much?

We don't care.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

I have a bias against recent joiners who take the Scorched Earth approach against people others who have demonstrated at least some level of competency in their chosen field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hufnagel

I have a bias against recent joiners who take the Scorched Earth approach against people others who have demonstrated at least some level of competency in their chosen field.

---

Makes two of us. Perhaps we shouldn't post or express opinions ever again? I mean, we are BIASED!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FredM

You just wasted lots of effort to tell us you're not going to read Caleb's blog anymore. Drama llama much?

We don't care.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

---

It's a damned shame there is no way you can ask Caleb a more specific question...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pup town

Sure, you do. If I take money from Colt and then write about Colt or shoot their 1911 for a year and blog about it, you honestly think the money played no factor in what I wrote? Or even played a factor in what gun I chose to feature in a year-long series? Does anyone think Colt pays people to write negative stories about their guns?

Once you start accepting money to write about a product, your writing is immediately suspect and can't be taken seriously.

---

On this standard, if I may extrapolate for a minute, the only possible way you'd trust a gun review is if there was a scientific association (Journal of American Firearms and Testing) that published peer reviewed articles relating to gun performance. These articles would have multiple professional references, engineering data with heavily scrutinized statistical analysis (ANOVA, t-test, regression analysis, full Design of Experiments description and derivation, etc), that allowed one to make sound conclusions about the legitimacy of a certain platform.

However, even in this setting, people would have accepted some type of compensation for this work. So is it still suspect?

Your standard of bias is so ridiculously high that no one could possibly ever meet it.