The cover story in this week’s issue of Business Week magazine focuses on the spectacular commercial success of the Glock pistol, and how a relatively small European manufacturer rose from obscurity in the 1980s to, in less than a decade, dominate a very traditional market that had always “bought American.” The piece was researched primarily by staff writer Paul Barrett. Reading some of the commentary on BW’s own website and on some of the gun forums, it appears that some gun people took it as anti-gun.
I know Barrett, and I didn’t take it that way. In fact, he’s one of the few mainstream media people I know who seems to take a totally neutral approach to this highly polarized debate. In reading his article and the related sidebars carefully, I can find no hint of editorial prejudice against gun owners. The online version opens with a video of me explaining why both police and “civilian” markets took to the Glock pistol like ducks to water. Both Barrett and his editors had the opportunity to edit out the comments in which I treated the private citizen sector with the same respect as the law enforcement sector. They did not.
I took Barrett to a couple of pistol matches so he could see why ordinary folks liked these popular handguns. In an exercise in “participatory journalism,” he took some private lessons with us and competed in the second match, using a borrowed Glock 17. He proved safe and competent for a man who has never owned a firearm and had only fired them in the course of research related to his reportage on the weapons industry. New to the gun, he did not come in last in the match.
In talking with Barrett, I got a sense of an honest reporter trying to show every side of the story he had been assigned to write. Some former Glock execs, whom he plainly showed in his article to be inimical toward the company, had to be quoted; when I talked with him, he was trying desperately to get counterpoint comments from current Glock spokespeople.
More than a month before the article came out, Paul Barrett was interviewed for the ProArms podcast by producer and editor (PrEditor?) Gail Pepin, with a view toward getting an outside analyst’s view of gun issues in general and the gun industry in particular. It can be downloaded from The ProArms Podcast site. That, too, sounded pretty even-handed to me. The poet Robert Burns said, “Oh, what a gift the giftie gie us, to see oursel’s as others see us.” The ProArms interview of Barrett is a unique opportunity to see how we gun people are viewed by that rare creature, the unbiased and unprejudiced outside observer who has studied us.
I can understand how some reflexively call the reporter “anti-gun” when he quotes sources hostile to someone’s favorite gun manufacturer. Gun owners are a minority long persecuted by mainstream media, and we can be as prone to over-reactions as Harvard professors who focus on racial prejudice and suddenly have a cross-racial misunderstanding with law enforcement.
Read the Barrett article and sidebars in their entirety. If you believe a media source has been unfair to you, your beliefs, and the truth, by all means speak out and hold them accountable. But, if you see the uncommon case where a mainstream story touching on guns has been done without prejudice to the guns themselves and those who own them, it’s just as important to write a comment and let the magazine know you appreciate honest, impartial reportage.
“Reinforcing good behavior,” and all of that…
Mas, background, and Herman Gunter, foreground, coach Paul Barrett on how to shoot a Glock.
Participatory journalism: Paul Barrett shoots an IDPA match with a borrowed Glock 17 9mm.
I have to agree with you. It was pretty even handed, and it made it clear why the product is so successful here with both civilians and law enforcement alike.
We as gun owners tend to kneejerk into a negative reaction about any media article that is not 100 percent complimentary of guns and gun owners. This piece was even handed – both good and bad – without any visible bias. But we’re so accustomed to being vilified by the media, we react viscerally if anything negative is mentioned.
Good post Mas, thank you for your good work.
Captain Jack Zeller
Keene PD.
It works for me.
The article was about the business side of the company and not judgmental about guns or gun owners, so I’m good with it. In fact I’d like to see more gun companies written about and treated just like any other business. That’s how we’ll start to get rid of the stigma that the Left has managed to attach to the gun industry and all aspects of shooting.
Paul Barrett here. Thank you for the kind words, Mas. You have a good fix on my motives and methods: dispassionate journalism in the service of challenging readers’ preconceptions. Thanks also for the time you invested in showing me the ins and outs of the Glock pistol. I learned a lot! I wish the folks at Glock Inc. in Smyrna had done the same. I would still welcome more engagement with them and with Glock users, as I intend to continue reporting in this area. Interested parties can contact me at paul_barrett@businessweek.com. Finally, thanks also to my colleagues Brian Grow and Jack Ewing at BW, who were vital partners in this substantial reporting and writing project. — Paul Barrett, BusinessWeek
I had read rumors on the ‘Net over the years that Glock was rather ruthless in their marketing and practices, so there wasn’t anything shocking in the report, though I didn’t think Mas’ voice would be as deep as it is–that’s the first time I’ve heard him speak.
The “deal” with S&W regarding the Clinton immunity issue was annoying; it read as if Glock set S&W up to take a fall. I was reminded of Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football in the “Peanuts” comic strip.
Overall, a very good, balanced article and video. Congrats to all.
[…] alleging they hide profits in shell companies. But there is also a lot of good info in the piece. Massad Ayoob doesn’t think the piece is anti-gun and he actually did some shooting with the […]
Thanks to Paul for a well written article. I agree with the other comments above. Thanks to Mas for having the courage to work with a “conventional” journalist where others may have been hesitant. It’s too bad others in Paul’s field of work have lost sight of what journalism is all about.
I read Mr. Barrett’s article in its entirety. While the focus was on the business of Glock, in actuality it could have been of any company with any product. His references to Glocks products, handguns, was pretty much “matter of fact”, without opinion as to propriety of their use, ownership, etc. I, for one, appreciate that he handled the topic without the usual editorial comments found in most stories concerning anything remotely involving firearms.
Great job on the commentary and shooting in the video, Mas. You nailed it right on the head regarding why Glock made such an impact on the police and civilian firearms market. The comparison between 18 rounds on paper with the G19 and the revolver would have been even more distinct if you had an officer or private citizen who is an average shooter do the demonstration. I would guess that most would not be able to do the speed reloads with the revolver quite as well as you. I always enjoy your blog, thanks!
I too thought it was a fine reference piece about a potentially hot topic. I wish I could see more of the same.
Still, there were a few parts of it that were outrageous, such as the claim that Jack Anderson’s s**t-stirring about nonexistent “plastic guns” was good for the industry because it created public awareness of Glocks. Yeah, if you completely ignore the years and money wasted fighting the gun-control idiots who used this lie as the basis for another strong push to ban guns. It’s like saying that 9/11 was good for the construction industry.
I read these two statements as anti-gun digs, albeit mild ones as things generally go in the MSM.
“First, he’d persuade American police they needed a lightweight weapon with more ammunition than traditional revolvers.”
As though police were falsely persuaded by clever marketing.
(I appreciated the comment in the video that there were other popular hi-cap pistols.)
“… , largely due to what gun executives call the “Obama stimulus”: fear among gun owners that the liberal President plans to curb the marketing of handguns. Gaston Glock played on that anxiety in an open letter to customers in January. …”
I wouldn’t call “played on that anxiety” neutral phrasing.
Like I said, not so bad as things generally go.
[…] author of the above article actually spent from time behind a Glock pistol, as part of his research, with blogger Massad Ayoob (Hat Tip: SayUncle). I wish more journalists […]
Then again Ted, what if Jerry Miculek had been shooting the revolver? He might have made the Glock look like a flintlock! ;D
Being “even handed” or “fair and balanced” on the 2nd Amendment or the inherent human Right to Keep and Bear Arms is precisely equivalent to being even handed on whether Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Assemble, the right to vote, or a number of other unalienable rights may be curtailed and infringed by government.
These rights are both self evident — at least in a free society, a democratic republic — and explicitly protected by our Constitution and laws.
There is no room for granting respect to the ‘other side’ when they suggest the abridgment of such fundamental rights.
We will not accept that law-abiding citizens might be denied the right to vote, and we must not accept that law-abiding responsible citizens are forbidden to both own and carry firearms.
Compromise in such issues is as foolish as compromise with murderers, robbers, and rapists.
For what it’s worth, I thought it was a remarkably even-handed and fascinating piece. I purchased a Glock as my first handgun, but I’ve never paid any attention to the business side of the company. Given the obvious research put into the technical details, I’m inclined to believe that the information on the other aspects was similarly accurate.
Massad,
I have to disagree with you on the GLOCK article in NEWSWEEK being balanced.
I believe that several of the reasons that GLOCK has been so successful were ignored or just glossed over.
1. GLOCK has gone out and supported their sales while other companies either sat on their tales or their reputations.
2. While the low cost of the GLOCK pistols was mentioned, I did not see a reference to the VERY, VERY LOW PRICES that GLOCK charged. When I joined the I&NS, we could buy a brand new GLOCK for $350.00. That was at least $100.00 to $150.00 below what S&W and BERETTA were charging or what gunshops charged for a new GLOCK.
3. In many ways, GLOCK redifined the definition of reliability. SMITH & WESSON for got it for a while and COLT never knew what it meant. I never bought a new COLT 1911 without going straight to the gunsmith for a feed job. Now you can get a 1911 that works perfectly straight out of the box, but it was GLOCK that raised the bar.
4. I have owned or carried on duty just about all the major gun makers product. I love BERETTA’S for their fine trigger and accuracy with virtualy flawless reliability. My SIG’S shot very well and I am now issued an H&K. They are all good pistols, but GLOCK set the modern standard for duty arms and NEWSWEEK should have spent more time on that.
Sincerely,
Jim C
p.s.–I really liked your book on the BERETTA pistols. It convinced me to give the VERTEC a try.
HerbM is exactly right. how many of us would tolerate the types of restrictions on the first amendment that are being proposed, and in some cases enacted, for the second amendment? The right to own a firearm is inherent, we should remember that.