I imagine we all get tired at times of all the name dropping that seems to get worse and worse in magazine stories and tv shows. I wish they would just go ahead and write the article then at the end list all the equipment used, odering info, why they might prefer it ect. You see this a bit but I dont think it would hurt their cause (advertising) to do it all the time. I know when I am in a bit of a pissy mood I will just stop reading or watching in disgust when I start hitting the inserted ads , especialy when they spout it off in the first paragraph.

One day your outdoor show or magizine writer might end the show or story Nascar style. I will try to, you can enter your own products. (We had a great hunt.... Team Realtree,Remington,Hornady,Danner,Fruit of the Loom,Quaker Oatmeal realy held it all together.It was realy tough at times but my Stacker 3 crew realy steped it up and we harvested /notice not killed/ a good buck.) The list could and would be longer but it would take a much deeper breath to say all your sponsors names but you must put them in order of how much money they put in your pocket.

My solution to the whole thing would be for each magazine to tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may. Now, I know that will NEVER happen in our real world, but imagine if each magazine did this....if you produce a product, you, by-God, better make it as good as you can, because if it's garbage, every magazine will trash it. Now, what do you think that would do to product quality if they knew their gonads were on the line?

I think there are two problems that have a negative effect on the outdoor press.

One is simply that most outdoor writers aren't very good writers. I don't mean that they (or, perhaps, their editors) aren't technically proficient; they write a magazine article with the same grace and skill that they would use to write a technical manual, an obituary or a textbook--and therein lies the first problem.

Most sportsmen read articles primarily to be entertained. Sure, we look for information, ideas, technical data, etc., but primarily, we seek some form of entertainiment while we spend a few spare minutes before dinner at home, at lunch during work, etc. What you hope for is someone who will capture your imagination and transport you away from where you are for a few moments; today, that's not at all what you get.

Outdoor writers of a different era were colorful. Today, when conversations turn to small bullets driven fast vs. those that are heavy, large and slow, hunters of my generation are still likely to invoke the names of Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor, writers who engraved themselves on our minds with the vivid images created by their words and strong opinions that they--and their magazines--were not afraid to put in print. I can't imagine today's writers lasting so long in anyone's memory--they're just too bland.

Gun writers--at least writers who had staff positions at magazines--always endorsed products to a greater or lesser degree. Today, though, the product drives the article; the vast majority of what you read is built around the product, with the hunting just a means to showcase the merchandise. The writers have a formula in which the hunting experience is secondary and the products are all. It's not a very satisfying read.

I can compare that to an article by Jack O'Connor that I remember, in which he was promoting a new Federal 28 gauge shotshell that contained a "full ounce" of shot. The article was ostensibly about the unappreciated worth of the 28 gauge, and the writing was about the gun, and about a pheasant hunt where the new Federal load "just happened" to be used. All the time you read the article, you were caught up in reading about birds, dogs and small-bore shotguns. But more than thirty years later, I still remember that in the mid-'70s, Federal came out with a 28 gauge load with a "full ounce" of shot. Such is the power of subtly effective writing (don't ask me what I read in the modern magazines last week--I probably don't recall--but I do recall that "full ounce" was italicized in O'Connor's piece). The subtle approach is probably also the more effective product placement--and a lot more fun to read.

The second problem is that, although the product drives the text of an article, you can't believe what you read. The product in question is produced by an advertiser, and if you disparage the advertiser's product, 1) you probably won't get any more to field test and 2) the advertiser will probably make an effort to assure that you will never write for the magazine in question again.

Hank H's comment about honest journalism just doesn't stand the test of the real world. Although it occurred in a different outdoor context, and not in a gun magazine, his suggested approach was tried a number of years ago, when Sportfishing magazine began to run a series of "real-world" boat tests by Tred Barta, who promised absolute honesty in his reviews. As I recall, two or perhaps three boats were tested, and then the series died. Manufacturers appeared to be more interested in praise than honest reviews--and from their point of view, who could blame them?

I know another writer known for his boat reviews. He's never ridden in a bad one. Every one plows through cresting waves, is stable at rest, has plenty of storage, is surprisingly fuel efficient, and all of the rest of the usual boat-rag BS. Talk to him privately, though, and the same boat he praised in print had a lot of problems--he sent a three-page letter to the manufacturer pointing out all of the flaws. He readily admits that he couldn't mention those flaws in public, though--he'd never be given another boat to review if he did...

Gun manufacturers, and gun writers, are cut from the same pattern, and have similar concerns.

Therefore, you don't expect an honest review of guns and shooting products; you expect to read what the advertisers want you to see. Knowing that makes the annoyingly obvious product placements even tougher to take.