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

[LittleLebowski]

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.

Pretty much where I was headed but better written.

[Tamara]

Gun Tests magazine tries hard to be the Consumer Reports of the gun industry, but some of the testers were so absolutely clueless on the subject matter that I gave up reading it not long after I started. It was like reading a magazine written by five guys randomly selected out of the line in front of you at the gun show. Maybe it's better now; I don't know.

[JM Campbell]

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 how do you feel about Mr. Green, Mr. Vickers, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Howell, Mr. Bolke, Mr. Dobbs, (insert fire arms trainer/gun world insider here).....?

[Tamara]

Never mind.

[GJM]

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.

I am with Josh -- I think every reviewer has bias, and I read stuff keeping that in mind, always assessing credibility.

I would love to hear from Caleb, but I assume his number one goal is to make Gunnuts profitable. To do that, he needs to maintain relationships with manufacturers, and manufacturers aren't keen on having their products trashed. I don't think this is just Caleb -- can anyone recall the last nasty article on a new gun in G&A or on a new plane in a major aviation magazine?

If anyone thinks otherwise, a fun project would be to stick some college research kids on compiling statistics on what percentage of articles in Gunnuts,and other similar gun blogs, are positive. Anyone remember a single article in Gunnuts, MSW or the like, on a major manufacturer's product, that was negative? I assume you have a far better chance of seeing a record book deer on opening day morning than having a site like Caleb's saying anything negative about a major manufacturer.

A quick read of Gunnuts this morning, shows a range of stuff from verbatim industry press releases to staff reviews like:

Last year at Media Day at the Range, I made a bee line for Springfield’s bay where I fell hard for the XDs 9mm. Truth be told, I was primed to love the 9, since I had been very impressed…

"We also like 9mm 1911s a lot, because they’re amazing to shoot. We think the Springfield Armory Range Officer 1911 9mm is going to be a big hit."

This doesn't stop me from perusing Gunnuts, MSW, and a number of other sites -- all of which are trying to do the dance between staying in the good graces of manufacturers, with stories that focus on the positive. I just tread their stuff keeping what I believe to be their bias in mind.

[Tamara]

This doesn't stop me from perusing Gunnuts, MSW, and a number of other sites -- all of which are trying to do the dance between staying in the good graces of manufacturers, with stories that focus on the positive. I just tread their stuff keeping what I believe to be their bias in mind.

Frank James and Dean Speir have both written sensibly about the realities of the gunwriting business, for anybody that wants to GTS.

[PPGMD]

Gunnuts/Gunup are in the business of advertising not writing. The writing is just a means to get the ads in front of the eye balls of the consumers.

IMO every opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. Everyone has their biases and preferences even people with no industry ties. Want to see that in action, go to a gun specific forum.

I am willing to bet that someone on one of the Hk forums is raving about Hk's version of KeyMod (which has been dubbed KochMod).

[Tamara]

Want to see that in action, go to a gun specific forum.

As a former moderator at GlockTalk who actually had her roommate design a Glock desktop theme for Win95*, this is absolutely true.


*Because, seriously, who doesn't want a long-winded Tommy Lee Jones .wav file playing every time you turn your computer on or off?

[TCinVA]

Sure, you do.

If you're going to attempt to make this argument, the first step is to make the entire argument. Caleb expressed an opinion on the reliability of the 2011 pistol. Another poster disagreed. After a couple of comments back and forth, the other poster said:

I am sure if STI threw some money your way for reviewing guns your tune would change.

When someone expresses a contrary opinion here, especially someone who has been around a while and is known relatively well by a number of folks, we aren't going to tolerate someone publicly stating that their opinion is bought and paid for without some sort of compelling evidence. If one lacks hard evidence that, say, Caleb is getting paid money to say nice things about Sigs on forums, then they can kindly keep that accusation under their hat.

You can suspect whomever you want of whatever you want for whatever reasons you wish. Think whatever you like.

While on this forum, however, everyone is expected to behave in accordance with the rules they agreed to follow when signing up for the forum. Calling someone a shill without proof does not follow the idea of:

Remain polite and professional in your conversation with others. Demeaning, insulting, and berating other members will not be tolerated. You are free to disagree, but do so respectfully and with humility.

http://pistol-forum.com/misc.php?do=showrules

You don't have to like Caleb or anyone else on this forum. You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to think they are wonderful people. You *do* have to observe at least a basic level of decorum when interacting with them here or the staff is going to deal with the problem.

There are forums where you can toss out wild accusations, impugn someone's character, and even insult their wives...but this isn't one of them, which is maybe why lots of people within the industry participate here rather than at other places.

The mission of pistol-forum.com is to serve as a professional resource for the exchange of information and ideas on the use of the pistol (and other firearms) in self defense, in an armed profession, and in competition. Through the respectful exchange of concepts and information we hope to be a resource that everyone from the accomplished professional to the relative novice can use to refine their ideas and practices to produce the best possible results for their situation.

The offending post was not in keeping with the mission of this forum or the conduct we hope to see from those who participate here.

[Pup town]

So how do you feel about Mr. Green, Mr. Vickers, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Howell, Mr. Bolke, Mr. Dobbs, (insert fire arms trainer/gun world insider here).....?

Not sure what this has to do with 'writers' taking money to 'review' a gun. But one difference between Vickers and Caleb is that Vickers doesn't pretend he isn't getting paid to endorse a product. We all know he's paid by Daniel Defense. Do you know which companies pays Caleb?