I sumitted this letter to Sporting Rifle two months ago, but they have not printed it:
"I have now been subscribing to Sporting Rifle for just over one year. So far Iíve enjoyed it and I also like watching the shows on the Shooting Show web-TV channel. I have, however, become increasingly concerned with the journalistic credibility of the magazine and its sister TV-channel and I doubt if I will be renewing my subscription. While I clearly understand the need for sponsorship to finance the production of the web-TV show, and certainly the need for traditional advertising in the magazine Ė I do not understand how any serious publisher, not to mention any self-respecting editor could accept the practice of mixing journalistic content and advertising the way you do. By all means, Swarowski delivers great optics, Browning and Merkel are great guns, Ely and Gecko decent mid-price ammo and Iím sure Deerhunter clothing is OK as well, but any magazine which includes critical tests of equipment from some suppliers cannot include praise of the products of other suppliers in articles and features if the latter is a regular sponsor. I am surprised that you yourselves donít see how this compromises your integrity. Iím sure Iím not the only reader/viewer that has asked myself if youíve been paid to provide good reviews for one product or if your been paid to provide negative reviews for others. Iím not familiar with the legal regulations of UK publishing, but even if it is not illegal Ė it is clearly unethical and certainly ridiculous."
I guess they do not appreciate criticism and prefer to print only positive letters. Do any of you have any thoughts on this?