And so it begins...

[Gaz]

I recognise we can complain but I would like to see the BASC and NRA join forces to undertake this on behalf of all sporting shooters. We have shooting bodies that we are members of and they should represent our interests.

Am I being unreasonable to expect them to stand up to idiotic articles like this ??? BTW an AR wasn't even used in the CT shootings !

If our governing bodies had the money, I'd expect them to have a couple of people monitoring media coverage of them/shooting in general and intervening behind the scenes - be that writing to editors, preparing counter-statements, proactively leading coverage by inviting journalists to come and see what we do and take part. By that I don't mean a hand-holding open day where they get ten rounds down at 100yds with grandees guffawing in the background, I mean having a look at a club on a fullbore range day or popping down to the indoor range for an evening. Give them trigger time by all means, but put them in the butts (working the targets, not strapped to them - as pleasing a notion as that might be) and sit them behind the firing point to chat to ordinary shooters.

You can't stage-manage what the news media sees, you need to take them to it, show its positive side to them and let them form a positive impression based on what they can observe for themselves. And if that involves asking potentially awkward questions, so be it.

Of course, the real problem is the documentary/drama media types, who carry a very specific set of prejudices and don't work in an environment like the news media where accuracy is checked daily. They're the ones who really shape pop culture.

[The Cupcake Kid]

The PCC will do nothing. The tabloids exist BECAUSE of their factual inaccuracies and unless the subject of them has the money to take them to Court, there will be no retractions or apologies forthcoming.

The thing to remember is that they're not really interested in the facts if they are not sensationalist. That's why they love all the exaggerated, made up gossipy rubbish they print. That's what the readers like too. Inviting them to a club to show them how safe shooting is and how unremarkable and normal gun owners are won't get written about because there isn't a headline to be had there.

Papers like the Times, Grauniad etc. may do a positive piece on shooting every now and then but that won't get read by Sun readers, so it won't balance out in the minds of those who are easily manipulated by the media.

Best thing to do is ignore them and hope they'll all eventually go the way of the News of The World.

Or hope something comes out of the Leveson enquiry which might put a stop to some of the sensationalist drivel they love to print every day (although I doubt it).

It's all tomorrow's fish & chip paper anyway.

[Dombo63]

There's no arguing with stupidity and ignorance. Had similar nonsense from mother-in-law over Christmas about the contents of my cabinet (2 air rifles, a No 4 and a target-stocked Remington that weighs a ton). Said she wouldn't stay again while there are guns in the house.
Hmmm...tough call that one. Should have got a bigger cabinet, fifteen years ago.

[EagerNoSkill]

There's no arguing with stupidity and ignorance. Had similar nonsense from mother-in-law over Christmas about the contents of my cabinet (2 air rifles, a No 4 and a target-stocked Remington that weighs a ton). Said she wouldn't stay again while there are guns in the house.
Hmmm...tough call that one. Should have got a bigger cabinet, fifteen years ago.

As good an excuse as I have ever heard not to have MIL come into house!!! party2

[ovenpaa]

My MiL is fine with guns, she is ex-Army and quite comfortable about such things. Fair to say she was more interested in the squadies than rifles when she joined us at Ulfborg last time. She also looks back on a Scottish Regiment she met on an exercises with fond memories, apparently they shared a few beers and hugs together.

[UKYankee]

I know this has been said before but interesting stat I found after just 5 minutes research. The below are from accredited sources including the Direct Gov website.

280 fatalities in the UK during 2011 due to drink driving.
51 fatalities in the UK during 2011 in firearm related instances; including suicides.

The only difference between someone getting drunk, deciding to driving and then killing a few people and a nutjob using a firearm to do the same thing is that being killed by a drink driver is 5 times more likely to happen to you in the UK!

[Primer]

I assume this has all been instigated by the GCN trying to create media hysteria on the back of the troubles across the pond, the Sun should hold its head in shame printing such inaccurate cr#p

[Gaz]

Best thing to do is ignore them and hope they'll all eventually go the way of the News of The World.

No, no, no, no, no. Ignoring a journalist does two things:

1. Tells them you have something to hide ("why is this person ignoring me, what are they hoping I won't find?")
2. Sends them into a feeding frenzy at your expense ("I'm going to find out what it is this person's hiding and broadcast it to the world!")

National newspapers aren't that interested in "man fires shot into paper target, sand slightly disturbed" stories. Sensationalism sells, and tabloid reporters make a living from sensationalising the otherwise mundane. But good work can still be done - the NRA's interim chief exec last year managed to get a Telegraph journalist down to Bisley, who (in the writeup in the paper) came across as a bit of an anti but was good enough to play it straight and report what the place and the people were like. It's that sort of mundane, everyday detail we need to get across. If I took you round my newsroom you'd be interested in the daily life and culture of the place. Are all journalists lying barstewards or are they actually human? etc etc.

People don't know who we are, have no idea what we do and have a mythical idea that we're all a bunch of Michael Ryans sitting in the shadowy corners furtively stroking big evil black guns that we just can't wait to turn on everyone else. We dispel this myth by inviting the press in, under controlled conditions with people who know how to handle journalists and their questions, and we show them that we're human. You can't eliminate prejudice from papers like the Guardian and the Daily Mirror and the Sun, but you can go an awful long way towards showing it as pathetic nonsense if you conduct yourself reasonably openly.

Local/regional papers on the other hand are screaming out for stuff to fill their pages with, every day or every week. Get them down, show them what you do, let them have a go, and send them away with details for prospective members to join. Tell them about silverware the club or its members have won recently, or something else that'll play nicely on the local rag's website. More people read those than you'd realise - when I ran my own one in my signature block I used to get around 7,000 people a month reading it. For one little London borough!

[Mike357]

I've spoken to an old school friend who is a sub editor for the Scottish Sun, his advice is to email Niall Millard with your concerns but keep it polite and well reasoned. It shouldn't go in-noticed he says.

[The Cupcake Kid]

Best thing to do is ignore them and hope they'll all eventually go the way of the News of The World.

No, no, no, no, no. Ignoring a journalist does two things:

1. Tells them you have something to hide ("why is this person ignoring me, what are they hoping I won't find?")
2. Sends them into a feeding frenzy at your expense ("I'm going to find out what it is this person's hiding and broadcast it to the world!")

National newspapers aren't that interested in "man fires shot into paper target, sand slightly disturbed" stories. Sensationalism sells, and tabloid reporters make a living from sensationalising the otherwise mundane. But good work can still be done - the NRA's interim chief exec last year managed to get a Telegraph journalist down to Bisley, who (in the writeup in the paper) came across as a bit of an anti but was good enough to play it straight and report what the place and the people were like. It's that sort of mundane, everyday detail we need to get across. If I took you round my newsroom you'd be interested in the daily life and culture of the place. Are all journalists lying barstewards or are they actually human? etc etc.

People don't know who we are, have no idea what we do and have a mythical idea that we're all a bunch of Michael Ryans sitting in the shadowy corners furtively stroking big evil black guns that we just can't wait to turn on everyone else. We dispel this myth by inviting the press in, under controlled conditions with people who know how to handle journalists and their questions, and we show them that we're human. You can't eliminate prejudice from papers like the Guardian and the Daily Mirror and the Sun, but you can go an awful long way towards showing it as pathetic nonsense if you conduct yourself reasonably openly.

Local/regional papers on the other hand are screaming out for stuff to fill their pages with, every day or every week. Get them down, show them what you do, let them have a go, and send them away with details for prospective members to join. Tell them about silverware the club or its members have won recently, or something else that'll play nicely on the local rag's website. More people read those than you'd realise - when I ran my own one in my signature block I used to get around 7,000 people a month reading it. For one little London borough!

Well I meant collectively ignore the (national tabloid) papers rather than a journo who specifically contacts you for a quote. We broadly agree, however.

Local papers do a good job communicating what's going on in local communities and generally trying to be useful to them, in stark contrast to the likes of the Sun, Mail, Mirror etc. who print all sorts of nonsense just to sell more copies.

I saw the piece in the Telegraph about Bisley and it's about as good as it gets.

Whatever one's specialist subject happens to be, it's inevitable that if a story is written about it, you will find all sorts of inaccuracies and holes in it because journalists can't and won't research every story long enough to get everything correct. Then when they're up against a deadline, stuff will get made up and factual corners will be cut just so they can file the story on time.

I've dealt with local and national press a bit over the years and had stories written about me and my businesses, so this is just my take based on my experiences (good and bad). I'll always remember being mis-quoted by a national paper many, many years ago about something pretty harmless but which could have seriously harmed a business relationship I was trying to set up, so I am naturally wary of the press and media generally. I think most people should be though, because it's very easy (especially in these days of Twitter, Facebook and T'Internet) to say or do something trivial which then gets blown out of all proportion by the media.