| Author | Post |
|---|
Pointman
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 06:24 pm |
|
shernandez wrote: As for giving you a copy of the story prior to publication[,] that violates copyright laws[,] and I will not even have the story in my possesion [sic] after the 21[st]. I record 98 percent of my interviews and I have never recieved [sic] any complaints when it comes to misquoting or taking a quote out of context.
For clarification, Ms. Hernandez is commenting on a private e-mail I bounced off my PR rep. before sending her. While what was discussed certainly doesn't violate copyright law, I don't believe it applies to the majority of people who might respond to an interview invitation.
Pertaining to her misquoting someone, I mentioned on June 25th, 10:19 AM: "The articles Samantha was able to have published seem to have a slightly-left slant. She seems to mainly report the facts as presented, and we should remember what is published is subject to editorial review before publication."
People are misquoted all the time by the media, which is usually due more to the outlet than the reporter. OpenCarry members have stated on many occasions that what was reported didn't match what was said or what happened. Knowing the outlet is often important so a person can choose to decline questions that may be presented in an unfavorable context.
shernandez wrote:
- The context in which the interview will be presented.
- A clear understanding of the publisher's position on the topic.
- The usage rights as related to the interview and any and all comments, images, likenesses, etc. directly or indirectly provided by the person being interviewed.
These last three are where it will cause you problems. unfortunatly [sic] I hava [sic] to go where the story takes me and with so many people not talking it makes it hard to get the entire story out there.
Absolutely right, not knowing the context a person's comments will be used in will (potentially) cause them problems.
I honestly do have a soft-spot for fresh journalists--they cover topics the seasoned veteran won't touch, but they also face an up-hill battle with getting their material published, and often have to take any outlet they can get. It's a double-edged sword for the person being interviewed, because they want to help a journalist that's interested in their cause, yet don't want to fall on the sword if an outlet hacks the story.
----
Aside from that, and as I said in private correspondence with Ms. Hernandez, I do appreciate her interest in the open carrying of firearms. There are many people in Wisconsin who want to protect themselves and their families in a safe and measured manor from the criminal population, yet are unable to do so without fear of repercussions from the legal system, which ironically, was designed to protect them.
As moderator Mike pointed out, people who legally openly carry a firearm are in the minority, and the laws restricting the majority and prohibiting personal security need to be exposed for what they are. While I may disagree with what I believe to be Mike's assessment that any outlet is a good outlet, the truth does need to be reported.
I do think people should ask the basic questions before being interviewed, and if the reporter is unwilling to answer them, they should also be unwilling to answer. When an officer walks up and asks questions, OpenCarry members usually want to know the circumstances before deciding if they should answer or not. It doesn't mean they shouldn't cooperate with police, it just means they want to make logical choices. It's up to the individual to judge the intentions of the person asking the questions, since any answers won't be heard by only the person listening at the time.
|
shernandez
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 06:39 pm |
|
| I meant problems in that no journalist would submit their story to an outside party for review/editing. I have checked your list out with several editors. Asking about how the interview will be conducted and reviewing questions prior to the interview is a common practice, having a source edit your work is not. My story, once submitted, becomes the property of Milwaukee Magazine, just like my WisPolitics articles and the other places I have written for. I am not a babe in the woods reporter. I seem to be hitting a well constructed wall when it comes to the open carry groups in the Milwaukee area.
|
Pointman
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 06:42 pm |
|
shernandez wrote: I know that Para does not speak for all open carry individuals, but he is the only person who has come forward to speak openly about his experiences. unfortunately the silence of Milwaukee area open carry individuals will in and of its self slant the article. I encourage those of you who are hesitant to speak call me at the office or email me. I can only make this story as fair as the information that I am given.
The rights of the people are not a battle of numbers. 50 people who don't understand the State Constitution but agree to be interviewed do not change the meaning of the Constitution. If it is a numbers battle, then the reporting is not based on fact, and it becomes another opinion poll. Reporters dig up facts all the time, it is part of the process.
|
WIG19
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 179 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 06:52 pm |
|
shernandez wrote: I seem to be hitting a well constructed wall when it comes to the open carry groups in the Milwaukee area.
You may be indeed ma'am, but it may be not without reason. What is often overlooked is that, even if everyone lives happily ever after, when someone is illegally detained (either through individual officer ignorance of the law or through a higher-level implicit policy), they suffer. There are attorney's fees, deprivation of property, appearances, loss of work, tarnishing of reputation even to the family-member level in small areas. Couple that with the tradtional bent of the Milwaukee-area press in general and folks get rather reticent. I'm sure you understand that but, as I intimated before, perhaps the 'why' of the reticence is part of the story. (Although I can understand why publications don't like to do alot of self-assessment of their particular field or sister-publications.)
Sorry I wasn't in your demographic; before establishing dialogue with the local chiefs I got individual answers about open-carry ranging from "doesn't bother me, but I may want to stop & compare holster notes with you" all the way to "THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO GET SHOT!" (young gung-ho kid).
I hope some others in your target area can speak with you - and as I also said before they could post what occurs for comparison with what's published. The only way, frankly, for Milwaukee-area press to get out of the hole they're in from a bias point of view is to first put down the shovel.
|
Pointman
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 06:54 pm |
|
shernandez wrote: I meant problems in that no journalist would submit their story to an outside party for review/editing. I have checked your list out with several editors. Asking about how the interview will be conducted and reviewing questions prior to the interview is a common practice, having a source edit your work is not. My story, once submitted, becomes the property of Milwaukee Magazine, just like my WisPolitics articles and the other places I have written for. I am not a babe in the woods reporter. I seem to be hitting a well constructed wall when it comes to the open carry groups in the Milwaukee area.
I'll publish the private e-mail here if you like, and give you permission to do so with the understanding that private information such as e-mail addresses, real names, and the PR firm's name/contact/other must be removed, but as I said, it doesn't apply to most people. I believe it would do more harm in getting people to respond to your questions than good.
Editing your work was not requested.
----
I do thank you for your interest in people's intent to secure themselves against illegal acts. Especially personal to me is the ability for women to defend against rape, and for parents to be able to protect their children from harm. 98% of defensive gun uses involve no shots being fired (AACFI), so it follows that openly carrying a firearm is the most reasonable thing a person can do to help deter a criminal attack and protect themselves and their family from harm.Last edited on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 07:07 pm by Pointman
|
shernandez
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 06:56 pm |
|
| I don't really see a reason to.
|
bnhcomputing
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 03:23 am |
|
Let's look at this from a different angle. I call 911 and report a "black man" walking down the street. Dispatch asks some questions, and then sends an officer. The officer drives by and sees exactly what I described, a black man walking down the street. What happens next?
Answer: The officer comes to my house and threatens me with a ticket/fine/etc. for making a FALSE 911 call. Why? After all, I thought he looked suspicious. See where I'm going with this? I'd be labeled a bigot REAL QUICK.
Now:
I call 911 and report a "man with a gun" walking down the street. Dispatch asks completely different questions, and then send six(6) or more officers. The officers arrive and see exactly what I described, a man with a gun walking down the street. What happens next?
Answer: In Milwaukee County the officers stop, detain, disarm, arrest, and charge the individual. Why is this not bigotry on the part of LEO?
I provided the individual's name and contact information for Milwaukee County, so a simple open records request would give you a verifiable copy. An UN-BIAS article would call out the Milwaukee PD as being the bigots they are. It would verify the information I provided, and then get an opinion from the AG as to the constitutionality of the PD's position.
You have picked an EXTREMELY COMPLEX issue and such a short time frame that you only have 1/2 the story.
Now, as others have written, we CAN go online and refute articles or add information, but we won't reach even 10% of a magazine readership. The readers get the magazine, and read the story. How many read the story, and then go online to see if there are comments or rebuttals? Not very damned many. Our fear is that the outcome will be a half researched half written article that portrays the "open carry" supporters in an unsavory light and leaving us no way to reach the SAME readers with ALL the facts once they are brought to light.
|
Parabellum
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 07:56 am |
|
I think its time I chimed in on this topic, which wasn't meant to be a discussion on whether or not we should give an interview. Those willing and able should give an interview, stop being afraid of anti-gun publicity or of messing up your reputations. "You get what you pay for", and "the reward is only as good as what you risk to get it" comes to mind as I read about how gun owners are scorned by the press and so forth.
Andrew Rothman posted a Milwaukee Magazine article that shows they are anti-gun or left-leaning, and who can blame them when even good, honest, and respectable gun owners are so averse to public scrutiny. That article was based on felons, murderers, addicts, thieves, and other obviously criminal elements and you relate to them because what...they had guns. We need to disassociate ourselves from this element by voicing our differences. Besides I would not lend credence to Andrew Rothman as he only has 2 posts and neither has a strong basis. Mike has obviously had a lot of time talking with reporters, and yes it can hurt to be cautious(personal experience).
Pointman and myself have had many private conversations in which we have agreed and disagreed, and although we look to the same goal (acknowledgement of OC as legal) we wont always see eye to eye on the best way to achieve that objective. I disagree that a willing subject to be interviewed needs even half of the if any of the questions Pointman posted to be answered. Go, take your recorder, be yourself, and have a conversation with Ms. Hernandez about OC and help her see what we are like. We dont need to hide who we are, that is kind of repugnant considering we are advocating OPEN CARRY, an act of SHOWING everyone we are armed, we should not be afraid to talk to someone about it, isn't one of the reasons some of us carry so that we can educate those that ask us about it that its legal and not something people should be afraid of?
Gun rights are almost never presented in a positive light, here is a chance to change the tune and we are almost entirely opposed to the idea of getting in the news at all. I think, although I could be mistaken, that I am a catalyst to this endeavor to gain public awareness of OC as a viable means of carry for WI, in fact the only means of carry in WI. Many people have told me in numerous PM, emails, and personal conversations that if there was anything they could do to help me, that I should just ask, so here it is, I am asking everyone able and willing to give an interview to do so. I am asking you to stake your reputations and the image of OC in Wisconsin to get public awareness for our cause which needs to be presented to the public. I am not asking people to OC in public or go thru the legal process to get this issue moving, I am asking that you put yourselves to the small hazard of talking to another human being about something I hope we all care about very much.
Too many people are telling Ms Hernandez what her perspective should be, give her an interview and she'll get perspective first hand, why should she have the perspective or take into account the concerns of those not willing to subject themselves. Give a first hand account and then what you say carries weight, absent that you are a voice without merit.
If still you will not answer my call to subject yourselves then I ask that those dissenting on whether or not to give an interview, to stop posting to this thread and allow it to gain speed without your hindering it. I disagree that this contest is not a numbers battle, we know that Wisconsin citizens voted 3 to 1 for a right to keep and bear arms, im of the opinion,and talking to people have only enforced it, that Wisconsin residents want to be able to carry their gun legally. They know they cant conceal it and they figure they cant carry it openly. We need to change that impression to cant carry concealed but we CAN carry openly. We dont need to get our whole story reported in this article, we only need a positive mention, and if a lot of OCers were to present themselves im sure our inherently positive nature will break thru whatever bias the magazine may have had in the past, remember she is only writing the story we are presenting and right now the story looks bad from my viewpoint. Am I the only one that is saying that OC is a good thing that withstands scrutiny?
The wall that OC groups have put up to "defend" themselves has stopped them from seeing that victory is in sight. The reason the wall was put up was to stop the abuses of the right to keep and bear arms, or at least to stop themselves from being an instrument of its destruction. But by doing so they have left other groups to determine the public opinion of guns in general. The right to keep and bear arms has been represented only by criminals, which is why it is seen as such a bad thing. We in Wisconsin can lose no more carry rights because we already have illusionary NO CARRY in Wisconsin. This article can be a first step to dispel this dangerous misconception. Lets stop worrying about a bad article and start trying to make sure it portrays us and OC in general in a positive light. I sincerely hope everyone takes what I said into consideration and stop posting to this thread if they are not willing to help, this I ask of everyone.
Parabellum
|
Pointman
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 11:46 am |
|
Para and I talk frequently, and in the two months I've known him I've gathered he's a pretty good guy. There are some things we do completely differently, even though we have most of the same goals when it comes to open carry.
When Ms. Hernandez asked if anyone has drawn their weapon while open carrying, I mentioned that there are some basic questions a person should consider before a media interview--a good speaker should know their audience. I have not discouraged nor encouraged anyone's response, and whether or not a person asks those questions before granting an interview is a personal decision, as is their response to the answers--or lack thereof.
Answering some questions, especially about drawing a weapon, could prompt an unwarranted police investigation. Other comments may cause a person to be a target of vandalism and harassment; it's easy for punk kids to tease the "big, bad gun owner." On the whole, interest in open carry is a good thing, and talking to the media in an informed and measured way provides positive coverage for people's rights and support for those otherwise unable to defend themselves in an attack.
Para took a risk when he legally openly carried his firearm in public, not from criminals he could now secure himself against, but from the police. In short order he became a victim of the system that is supposed to protect him, but instead disarmed him and is trying to find a way to try him in court. It seems straightforward that the story should focus on Para's ordeal, the rising crime and struggle of law-abiding citizens trying to prevent themselves from becoming victims, and perhaps even contain a side note that gun owners are such a target of wrongful bias that even getting them to grant an interview is difficult.
|
WIG19
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 179 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 12:03 pm |
|
Parabellum wrote: We in Wisconsin can lose no more carry rights because we already have illusionary NO CARRY in Wisconsin. This article can be a first step to dispel this dangerous misconception. Lets stop worrying about a bad article and start trying to make sure it portrays us and OC in general in a positive light. I sincerely hope everyone takes what I said into consideration and stop posting to this thread if they are not willing to help, this I ask of everyone.
Parabellum
Happen to agree. As I've said I understand the skepticism but also have full confidence in my ability to articulate my views to another party. Ms. Hernandez & I had a polite email exchange which revealed that, unfortunately, I'm not in her demographic.
|
shernandez
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 02:24 pm |
|
It is unfortunate that you weren't because you have been helpful with pointing me in certain directions. I understand that I was out of line with the question about drawing a gun.
I want to thank Para for advocating on behalf of my article. Mike has also been instrumental with getting the ball rolling.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 02:55 pm |
|
Pointman wrote: As moderator Mike pointed out, people who legally openly carry a firearm are in the minority, and the laws restricting the majority and prohibiting personal security need to be exposed for what they are. While I may disagree with what I believe to be Mike's assessment that any outlet is a good outlet, the truth does need to be reported.
I think the past article this magazine did was factually correct - always a good thing - but in the end, I do not care at all whether the outlet is pro-gun generally - in fact, sometimes better if they are anti-gun - forces the reporters and management to confront the facts - we have really turned the Wash Post around over the last few years - they play much closer to the truth on gun laws now
|
WIG19
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 179 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 03:08 pm |
|
shernandez wrote: I understand that I was out of line with the question about drawing a gun.
No problem for me; there are whole internet forums that get that question 3x/week with the usual gruff response of "use the search engine". But people do often get into a forum and forget where they are. That's why there are moderators, Terms of Service, etc., ad nauseum. 
Having while in uniform been fired at ('without effect' as ol' Winston Churchill would say) and fired back (with) I'm also in the category of those who hope they never have to do so...ever. That said, there has been the occasional instance when carrying out of state that simply not appearing as a prey item on the menu has, I'm convinced, changed an event for the better. But, like the African villager completely taken by a croc, there's no evidence left so it doesn't get reported/logged as "successful defensive use of a handgun." For me, that's the best - not to have to pull it in the first place.
For most who've made the choice and assumed the responsibility to carry, and who are by far a very small minority of the general populace, frankly they just want to be left alone to enjoy their lives. But the resolve employes the cliche "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose."
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Jul 4th, 2008 02:34 pm |
|
WIG19 wrote: shernandez wrote: I understand that I was out of line with the question about drawing a gun.
No problem for me; there are whole internet forums that get that question 3x/week with the usual gruff response of "use the search engine".
Right - hopefully the article gets into things like holsters, retention, situational awareness, avoiding unnecessary gun handling, etc.
And Wisc. law now requires unnecessary gun handling each and every time a gun owner enters or exits his vehcile where guns must be unloaded, encased. Open carry rights in vehicles needs to be restored on public safety grounds.
|
shernandez
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 04:07 pm |
|
| I will see what I can do. Have a good weekend.
|
Tom
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 06:37 pm |
|
Para I think you are absolutely correct. If it is not too late, I will notify the author of my willingness for an interview. Para, you are wise beyond your years. Edited follow up,
I just emailed Samantha and informed her of my willingness to be interviewed.
Tom
Last edited on Sat Jul 5th, 2008 06:43 pm by Tom
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Jul 5th, 2008 08:46 pm |
|
Tom wrote: Para I think you are absolutely correct. If it is not too late, I will notify the author of my willingness for an interview. Para, you are wise beyond your years. Edited follow up,
I just emailed Samantha and informed her of my willingness to be interviewed.
Tom
That's the spirit! The press does not bite - except to come back to you later if you are a reliable and likeable source fo info.
And if you really get a horribly worded or really weird question, just take second and reply with the classic politician line - "Well, the real question is... or the real issue is ..." and answer your own question!
Now I must admit I did end one interview one time - but that was almost like a crank call and from a columnist, not a reporter - this columnist from Pittsburg, irate at a press release we sent out, called me in response to the press release and asked my why I wanted to kill people - I calmly asked him if he was a real reporter and he got irritated even more 
|
shernandez
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 03:01 pm |
|
| I got your email and sent you same.
|
shernandez
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 06:29 pm |
|
Last call for interviews. My deadline is coming up and I plan to start writing in the next few days.
I edited for spelling.
Last edited on Mon Jul 7th, 2008 06:37 pm by shernandez
|
shernandez
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 128 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 04:36 pm |
|
| Since Para's post people have been very helpful and I have received many insightful interviews.
|
Current time is 11:08 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...   |
|
|
|
