Feeling conflicted here: Personally, I would do this. Agree to give them info and quotes for this story if and only if they sign a document (which you will have prepared and ready) guaranteeing that they will air as part of the story a complete quote from you, the length of which and content of which will be determined by you (and the promise will be spelled out in writing) - enough to ensure that your main pro-gun point du jour is made - basically this would prevent them from editing you out of context - it still may be a biased story, but at least you're guaranteed one complete good point. Then explain to Mr./Mrs. reporter that you will gladly help if they will have their authorized agent sign the agreement. There will also be a clause stipulating damages at say, $25,000 or so, if they violate the no-edit agreement. They can take it or leave it. Chances are 1 in a million they will take it, but at least you give off the impression that you are willing to provide input if they will just be fair and sign the agreement promising not to take you out of context, instead of appearing totally uncooperative - makes you look like the merits of your side are weak. Then I'd be curious to see whether they would report "McMillan would not return our calls for the story" or report the truth "Since we would not agree in writing, as McMillan requested, to give him a certain amount of air time, we would not/could not obtain his comments". If they have any integrity at all, it will be the latter.
[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited November 23, 1999).]
