• Media+hormones

    Home Forums General Discussion M&M Lounge Media+hormones

    This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  shpongled 5 months ago.

    Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 30 total)
    • Author
      Posts
    • #501583

      Someone from a major newspaper has contacted me, wants to do an interview on prohormones.

      I would assume there are some people here that get this a lot (PA?). Is the best thing just to ignore him? I would like to talk to him to ask about the tone of the article, but fear that anything I say can and will be used to demonize anabolics, somehow or someway.

      If there are any suggestions throw them out there, cuz I want to tread lightly.

      As a side note, haven’t been here in a while, looks like a lot has changed.

      [right][snapback]305207[/snapback][/right]

      I have no advice for your situation, but it’s good to see you back around these parts.

      #501584

      Benson
      Member

      As a side note, haven’t been here in a while, looks like a lot has changed.

      [right][snapback]305207[/snapback][/right]

      Welcome back Mr. Tolson.

      A discussion with the reporter about his slant might be useful but my experience with the media is that they will tilt the discussion however they want, regardless of the truth. However, you might find that rare thing: an open-minded reporter without a preconceived opinion about his subject.

      #501589

      trouble
      Member

      Aye, David, there are two sides to every coin.

      You say that medical research has proven conslusively that they have strenth, endurance, and muscle building benefits.

      You also mention that medicine is mow looking at them closely as adjunct therapy for a number of conditions.

      That they, like all drugs, must be treated with respect, and employed in moderation, in dose and duration, within a sports training program.

      I would advise you say nothing about recreational use. It’s a can of worms that will lead to nothing but negative association.

      I suggest you write the script for them.

      You’re a seasoned technical writer – you can do it. This keeps the intent of your words from being mangled or misdirected into less happy waters, with respect to AAS and bodybuidling.

      You can explain that you’d rather educate them and the public rather than supply soundbites.

      #501602

      ScottL
      Member

      Welcome back. Hope all is well.

      #501648

      abraxas
      Member

      I once did an interview about college drug use (mostly in regards to things like hash) with a dorm roomate journalism major.

      He completely butchered what I had said, essentally eliminating the bulk of the ideas I had wished to express. The final interview was spun to basically just reaffirm current stereotypes abotu college drug use.

      I think it actually won an award of some sort.

      It was thoroughly disapointing, but I learned alot about the (unintentional) deceptiveness of the media. A “good” journalist is usually one that confirms peoples existing beliefs.

      #501663

      HeadDoc
      Member

      David you are a great writter. However, you won’t be doing the writting here. Prohormones have been banned. Consider referring the journalist to Will Carroll–another journalist.

      #501685

      Josh
      Member

      Get them to sign an agreement prior to the interview, that gives you final editorial control over the article. I don’t know if that sort of thing is legal in the US, and it is unlikely that they would want to sign.

      David – you have been AWOL afor a while. Hope to see you round these parts more.

      J

      #501743

      Dante
      Member

      David you are a great writter.  However, you won’t be doing the writting here. 

      [right][snapback]305329[/snapback][/right]

      Exactly. Not even the speaking, either, if context counts for something.

      Otherwise, you’d probably be the first person interviewed to ever have his thoughts published completely on the matter.

      [quote]Get them to sign an agreement prior to the interview, that gives you final editorial control over the article. I don’t know if that sort of thing is legal in the US, and it is unlikely that they would want to sign.

      Yes. They really care about David Tolson and David Tolson’s take on anabolic steroids. That’s why they asked him.

      To loosen the standards for a moment:

      The majority of users and steroid advocates do a pretty damn good job on their own of making a legitimate case [i]against[/i] steroid use.

      I feel sorry for few and certainly so with regards to some impersonal masochistic group, beyond personal principles.

      It could be good for you to get your name out there, regardless, saying what you wish to say and seeing where they take it. If it’s taken out of context, as will happen, then there’s always room to submit a published note to the editor.

      I’m not saying you should do this – but, why castrate yourself for ingrates and people who reap the rewards of their own lack of principles but haven’t a qualm with you keeping yours and dealing with the consequences.

      #501745

      trouble
      Member

      Why don’t you offer to write it as a guest writer? Show the paper some of your online articles. Circumvent the possibility of being misquoted or having your words taken out of context. Your argument in favor of this approach: the socially sensitive and controversial nature of the topic. Depending on the publication (modest local news or syndicated conglomerate newpapers), this might be an ideal opportunity to showcase not only AAS but new nonsteroidal anabolic products.

      #501752

      Dante
      Member

      That they, like all drugs, must be treated with respect, and employed in moderation, in dose and duration, within a sports training program.

      I would advise you say nothing about recreational use.  It’s a can of worms that will lead to nothing but negative association.

      [right][snapback]305220[/snapback][/right]

      Regardless of which way he did it (per your last suggestion), sports and personal use are inextricably related when it comes to what the public perceives as the major threat.

      The kids, afterall.

      And it’s not a shaky viewpoint, either. Anabolics in the context of sports is its own can of worms, and any attempt to avoid the subject of recreational use after mentioning professional sports would be called out be even the most sedated of lemmings (it is a serious cop-out).

      So we’re left with anabolics as therapy, under the supervision of a medical authority for legitimate health related reasons. In that case, it would be far to easy to come across as the stoner in support of medical marijuana.

      And it’s certainly questionable why anyone other than a doctor, a patient or a researcher interested specifically in age-related concerns would really care about anabolics solely within that limited scope – let alone David Tolson, who anyone would be able to see has an obvious interest in ergogencis and performance. Even if the public was convinced of the legitimacy of anbolic steroids in a medical setting, I gather that wouldn’t change anything as far as everyone’s concered with anabolics as they related to them.

      So if we’re talking about AAS’s, PH’s and erogenics on the whole (by implication), then you’d end up saying, in essence: There is a legitimate use.

      Which is to say, the others are not. Someone would certainly attack that angle – made odder if you represent a company offering ergogenics to the public for recreational use.

      Not trying to rain on anyone’s parade – I simply don’t have an idea of where everyone is trying to go with this. Machievallian tactics work exceedingly well to convince people of things they are already convinced of, while misleading them across a bridge they are naturally inclined to cross on their own if only they had a kick in the ass.

      #501813

      TSC
      Member

      I could be wrong, however if a reporter was going to do a fair report on the subject (he/she would be one of the few) they would have done the research already and really wouldn’t want your input. In all likelyhood any positive points you mention will be ditched, or if they aren’t they will be tagged with a statement like Mr. Tolson has an obvious bias as 5 of the top 10 selling items of his employer’s store are either hormones or ephedrine products etc etc. Despite your extensive writings, do you think you are wanted for your expertise or for the fact that you work for one of the largest retailers of the products in question?? Given the track record of industry people and reporters, I doubt a fair and balanced article is in the works.

      TSC

      #501880

      Anonymous

      Being part of a corporation that the media is always headhunting I have found in my experience that no matter how the interview goes when it goes to print they will twist it to put you in a negative light.

      This has been my experience personally which makes me very gun shy when dealing with media.

      Take it for what it’s worth.

      #501881

      Anonymous

      Being part of a corporation that the media is always headhunting I have found in my experience that no matter how the interview goes when it goes to print they will twist it to put you in a negative light.

      This has been my experience personally which makes me very gun shy when dealing with media.

      Take it for what it’s worth.

      #502048

      trouble
      Member

      Regardless of which way he did it (per your last suggestion), sports and personal use are inextricably related when it comes to what the public perceives as the major threat;

      Thats true enough.

      So lets turn your sword around.

      Okey dokey. 

      Not only is recreational drug use good, but, as in the case of Viagra, tis the unsung hero, boon to the middle agers endless search for youthful revialization.

      The youth drugs. 

      >The kids, afterall.

      So right, why didn’t I think of this angle previously?    *snort*

      But lets not dally, on with the travesty…

      And it’s not a shaky viewpoint, either. Anabolics in the context of sports is its own can of worms, and any attempt to avoid the subject of recreational use after mentioning professional sports would be called out be even the most sedated of lemmings (it is a serious cop-out).

      Just so.

      Much better to acknowledge its potential as the next super drug – one that help remakes sagging middle aged bodies into youthful hunks again.  All one needs is some weight lifting and a little tweeking of diet, and oh, yes, those erogenics do wonders for getting our asses in the gym each day – all to make ourselves more beautious, more virile to younger (much younger) women.

      Aye, t’would sell like hot cakes, when prescribed for anti aging therapy.

      >So we’re left with anabolics as therapy, under the supervision of a medical authority for legitimate health related reasons.  In that case, it would be far to easy to come across as the stoner in support of medical marijuana.

      Viagra look like a stoner drug to you?  Jesus christ, its become the hottest drug on the market.  And its not because low libido is rampant.

      No sir, you would find quite a little turn around in public opinion if AAS were marketed as a new class of wonder drug, renamed and marketed as the next big thing in the endless seeking of youth in a bottle (or in a injection, for clinics would abound that would specialize in these “treatments”.

      You think androgel isn’t misprescribed, or countless antidepressants?

      How lucky, that there is a healthy gray market to supply those unwilling (or in the case of those without health insurance to cover these tidbits, unable) to pay full prescription cost for these life quality boosting drugs?

      I think if the products were showcased with the usually Hollywood mentality fueled by a hungry pharmaceutical interest – it would sell just fine on infomercials.

      >And it’s certainly questionable why anyone other than a doctor, a patient or a researcher interested specifically in age-related concerns would really care about anabolics solely within that limited scope

      Now Dante, you’re just not using that creative juice upstairs.  Gotta think outside the bun, man.

      > Even if the public was convinced of the legitimacy of anbolic steroids in a medical setting, I gather that wouldn’t change anything as far as everyone’s concered with anabolics as they related to them.

      I see you underestimate the spending power of the middle aged millions looking for the fountain of youth.  Oh yes, they would be VERY interested in these products, packaged not for sports, but for attaining a certai body type that speaks of youthful vigor and viritlity. 

      We’re talking billions, boy.

      >So if we’re talking about AAS’s, PH’s and erogenics on the whole (by implication), then you’d end up saying, in essence: There is a legitimate use.

      Damn tootin right I am.  Thats the American way.    First you hype its medical uses, and then you quietly start to ply to the repackaged goods to physicians, who in their typical mentality, will offer it as the perfect panacea to the man who has viagra and wants…more, more, more…

      recreational use.

      >Not trying to rain on anyone’s parade – I simply don’t have an idea of where everyone is trying to go with this.

      But of course you were, Dante.  Isn’t that your new credo here?  Trash everybody and look real cool and clever??

      >Machievallian tactics work exceedingly well to convince people of things they are already convinced of, while misleading them across a bridge they are naturally inclined to cross on their own if only they had a kick in the ass.

      Precisely so!    Do you see?  You have supplied exactly the answer required here.

      How can we ever thank you enough??

      [right][snapback]305467[/snapback][/right]

      #502049

      trouble
      Member

      Regardless of which way he did it (per your last suggestion), sports and personal use are inextricably related when it comes to what the public perceives as the major threat;

      Thats true enough.

      So lets turn your sword around.

      Okey dokey. 

      Not only is recreational drug use good, but, as in the case of Viagra, tis the unsung hero, boon to the middle agers endless search for youthful revialization.

      The youth drugs. 

      >The kids, afterall.

      So right, why didn’t I think of this angle previously?    *snort*

      But lets not dally, on with the travesty…

      And it’s not a shaky viewpoint, either. Anabolics in the context of sports is its own can of worms, and any attempt to avoid the subject of recreational use after mentioning professional sports would be called out be even the most sedated of lemmings (it is a serious cop-out).

      Just so.

      Much better to acknowledge its potential as the next super drug – one that help remakes sagging middle aged bodies into youthful hunks again.  All one needs is some weight lifting and a little tweeking of diet, and oh, yes, those erogenics do wonders for getting our asses in the gym each day – all to make ourselves more beautious, more virile to younger (much younger) women.

      Aye, t’would sell like hot cakes, when prescribed for anti aging therapy.

      >So we’re left with anabolics as therapy, under the supervision of a medical authority for legitimate health related reasons.  In that case, it would be far to easy to come across as the stoner in support of medical marijuana.

      Viagra look like a stoner drug to you?  Jesus christ, its become the hottest drug on the market.  And its not because low libido is rampant.

      No sir, you would find quite a little turn around in public opinion if AAS were marketed as a new class of wonder drug, renamed and marketed as the next big thing in the endless seeking of youth in a bottle (or in a injection, for clinics would abound that would specialize in these “treatments”.

      You think androgel isn’t misprescribed, or countless antidepressants?

      How lucky, that there is a healthy gray market to supply those unwilling (or in the case of those without health insurance to cover these tidbits, unable) to pay full prescription cost for these life quality boosting drugs?

      I think if the products were showcased with the usually Hollywood mentality fueled by a hungry pharmaceutical interest – it would sell just fine on infomercials.

      >And it’s certainly questionable why anyone other than a doctor, a patient or a researcher interested specifically in age-related concerns would really care about anabolics solely within that limited scope

      Now Dante, you’re just not using that creative juice upstairs.  Gotta think outside the bun, man.

      > Even if the public was convinced of the legitimacy of anbolic steroids in a medical setting, I gather that wouldn’t change anything as far as everyone’s concered with anabolics as they related to them.

      I see you underestimate the spending power of the middle aged millions looking for the fountain of youth.  Oh yes, they would be VERY interested in these products, packaged not for sports, but for attaining a certai body type that speaks of youthful vigor and viritlity. 

      We’re talking billions, boy.

      >So if we’re talking about AAS’s, PH’s and erogenics on the whole (by implication), then you’d end up saying, in essence: There is a legitimate use.

      Damn tootin right I am.  Thats the American way.    First you hype its medical uses, and then you quietly start to ply to the repackaged goods to physicians, who in their typical mentality, will offer it as the perfect panacea to the man who has viagra and wants…more, more, more…

      recreational use.

      >Not trying to rain on anyone’s parade – I simply don’t have an idea of where everyone is trying to go with this.

      But of course you were, Dante.  Isn’t that your new credo here?  Trash everybody and look real cool and clever??

      >Machievallian tactics work exceedingly well to convince people of things they are already convinced of, while misleading them across a bridge they are naturally inclined to cross on their own if only they had a kick in the ass.

      Precisely so!    Do you see?  You have supplied exactly the answer required here.

      How can we ever thank you enough??

      [right][snapback]305467[/snapback][/right]

      #502060

      pluto
      Member

      [b]DON’T[/b]

      It may seem cool to have your name in the paper, and it may provide free publicity for bulknutrition.com, but it’s extremely likely that the reporter will follow institutional guidelines in his/her reporting and do the ‘drugs are b-a-a-a-d’ thing.

      #502061

      pluto
      Member

      [b]DON’T[/b]

      It may seem cool to have your name in the paper, and it may provide free publicity for bulknutrition.com, but it’s extremely likely that the reporter will follow institutional guidelines in his/her reporting and do the ‘drugs are b-a-a-a-d’ thing.

      #502070

      tlow4u
      Member

      “Anything you say can and will be used against you.”

      #502097

      Par Deus
      Member

      Someone from a major newspaper has contacted me, wants to do an interview on prohormones.

      I would assume there are some people here that get this a lot (PA?). Is the best thing just to ignore him? I would like to talk to him to ask about the tone of the article, but fear that anything I say can and will be used to demonize anabolics, somehow or someway.

      If there are any suggestions throw them out there, cuz I want to tread lightly.

      As a side note, haven’t been here in a while, looks like a lot has changed.

      [right][snapback]305207[/snapback][/right]

      Anything you say will be used to demonize anabolics in any way that they can do so.

      I strongly advise against it.

      #502098

      Par Deus
      Member

      Someone from a major newspaper has contacted me, wants to do an interview on prohormones.

      I would assume there are some people here that get this a lot (PA?). Is the best thing just to ignore him? I would like to talk to him to ask about the tone of the article, but fear that anything I say can and will be used to demonize anabolics, somehow or someway.

      If there are any suggestions throw them out there, cuz I want to tread lightly.

      As a side note, haven’t been here in a while, looks like a lot has changed.

      [right][snapback]305207[/snapback][/right]

      Anything you say will be used to demonize anabolics in any way that they can do so.

      I strongly advise against it.

    Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 30 total)

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    Comments are currently closed.