From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 08:11:48 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 16:30:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Possible Action Pending In Reed UFO Fraud - >From: Amy Hebert <email@example.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Subject: Re: Possible Action Pending In Reed UFO Fraud >Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 16:23:52 -0500 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >>Subject: Re: Possible Action Pending In Reed UFO Fraud >>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 08:33:19 -0500 >>>From: Amy Hebert <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >>>Subject: Re: Possible Action Pending In Reed UFO Fraud >>>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:38:28 -0500 >>>The Reed hoax probably wouldn't have gained any attention if it >>>hadn't been for those who promoted him on national radio, at >>>conferences, etc. Reed was not the only one to benefit from his >>>hoax. >>>Boycott the enablers. >>I won't defend a co-conspirator, of course, but the ability to >>parse the enabler from the co-conspirator can be difficult to >>do. >Alfred, there is a difference between responsible reporting and >yellow journalism. ...no argument here. Still, someone's going to make a subjective call on where the border is. >For example, which do you think is more >responsible for delivering factual information (or something >close to the truth) - CNN or Jerry Springer? Time Magazine or >The National Enquirer? Which would you use in objective >research? Which would you want the public to buy? The assumption here is that "factual" information is coming from _anywhere_, is 'somewhere' not homogenized or processed, or can be readily detected at some point where it is not filtered in any way... which is a big, and likely invalid, assumption. Consider that Jerry Spinger (a _whole_ lot more honest about what _he's_ doing) shows more true cultural warts on our society than CNN does, and that many times even the Enquirer will break a true story that Time/Warner avoids like a journalistic plague. I know where the smart money would put an answer to your questions, but that investment seems to lose more value with the passing of each accelerating day. I want to believe in the mainstream, I want to be able to presume that it is candid and forthcoming, but it is none of those things, and has likely never _been_ any of those things. The only difference lately is an untamed communication that we can have via the internet where the unfiltered and raw is possible, even _if_ bogus. We're _used_ to bogus. We've lived with bogus all our lives. I'll prefer the unfiltered. ...More vitamins and minerals. >>EBK (myself or even you) can be taken in by hoaxer just as >>easily as the other hoaxed and earn, for their trouble, >>innocence and journalistic bravery, your boycott? >Yes, any of us can be taken in by a hoaxer but we can lessen >those mistakes by carefully investigating and researching the >claimant _before_ putting them on the air. I'm an honorable guy (make the assumption for argument [g].). If I had Bell's, Rense's or B-K's show, and a guy called in to say that he has evidence (I can preview) of something 'peculiar'... I'm going to put him on the air - regardless. Let the evidence sink or float on it's own. I would be the facilitator, the mechanism for the _beginning_ of the investigation and research you call for. I would broach the subject. Without _me_, (Jeff, Errol, or even Art), the subject is not even raised. Moreover - a facilitator (or enabler) is going to have the resources to investigate one or broach many, and it is the job of the facilitator to "broach". Consider that Art Bell gave Reed enough air time to hang himself, not to defend Bell (who I don't consider nearly as responsible as Jeff or Errol), but just to point out that it was Bell that pointed Reed out to Myers... >It's one thing to >allow just anyone to appear on a show (at a conference, etc.) >and another thing to actively screen prospective guests. (I have >no idea what EBK does on his show as I have never tuned in.) Well -- Errol tries to be VERY circumspect, I think, but if someone is willing to stand up with a ufological feather protruding from an otherwise credible pore, I think he'd have the courage to give that person a higher place to stand to tell her story. >>Then we get >>_no_ unfiltered information. The "enabler" has a bigger voice >>and a wider reach and is, many times, the only reason we get the >>information we get, at all. >And it is _because_ the program hosts (producers and directors) Maybe these guys should have vast staffs of producers and directors, but they don't. Bell allegedly does it on his own, I'm reasonably certain that Rense has only one or two volunteer or near volunteer associates to assist him in 'his' effort, and I know that EBK is overworked, underpaid, and generally as busy as the proverbial armless paper hanger. More 'reach', unfortunately, does not mean more 'grasp' which is what you seem to apply here. >have a bigger voice and wider reach that they have a greater >responsibility to seek quality over quantity in the guests they >share with the public. I realize it's hard to find high quality, >honest guests week after week especially when it comes to the >study of phenomena but I'd rather have all music than listen to >some lunatic spread all kinds of BS to the world through >national and international radio, TV, etc. ...and I'd rather Chuck Shrameck be allowed a chance to publish to a wide audience what the mainstream would deny, decry, and otherwise deride. Elevator music while waiting for predigested truth is not an answer. >When it comes to phenomena, especially UFOs, quality research >and qualified researchers are few and far between. However, >there are plenty of theorists with wild ideas and claims willing >to share their thoughts with anyone who will listen. Well - where am I, then, going to have an opportunity to hear what they have to say? >Unfortunately, many of these programs on the airways will do >anything to boost ratings or just keep the show on the air so >they put just about anyone on the air. Here and there they share >interesting research/information but by and large they go for >quantity over quality - anything to keep the audience's >attention. That's a charge more ably leveled at a hijacked mainstream than our paranormal enablers. >It does no good to complain to the program hosts, producers >and/or directors because they focus more on the ratings than the >content of their programs. (Even though hoaxes have been clearly >demonstrated to Art Bell he continues to present/promote them on >his programs and on his web site.) That may be. I don't know. >>No -- to keep the facilitators, >>like EBK, in business they can't be made to pay the freight of a >>lying sociopath until they collude in the lie... then they >>_earn_ their candidacy for chemical castration and punitive >removal from the journalistic gene pool..... <g> >I never even mentioned EBK, Alfred, you did. Hey -- he's an 'enabler'. In for a penny, in for a pound. But I say this remembering I watched a clear eyed and unblinking Errol shove the smirking sneer right back up the nose of his mainstream interviewer on Canadian television... demonstrating why he is one of my personal heroes. [g]. >I thought we were >talking about the Reed hoax and those involved. No ma'am - we were taking about scurrilous enablers. >But any median >available to large populations must be held responsible for the >content of the programs presented. Nonsense. They are as innocent as the credulous public until they collude in the hoax, fabrication, or lie. Perhaps they should show a little more discretion (?), but I'd prefer someone shout "fire" in the theatre if they think the theatre really _is_ on fire. There won't be any panic until someone smells smoke or sees a flame, and then some may be killed in the stampede to get out, but more will survive than if they all just SAT there waiting for someone, even you, to certify the smoke and flames. >Actually, we are all enablers (what you have changed to >"facilitators") as long as we accept the status quo and do >nothing to change it. I don't think anyone will accuse _me_ of accepting the status quo, Ms. Hebert. [g]. >As long as we _allow_ low quality, >sensationalized materials to permeate the UFO community, we >promote the very concepts we abhor. I don't want anybody defining 'quality' for me, low, high, or otherwise. 'Air' the claims, and I'll decide, define, and defy. >Each hoax, each lie, each >unfounded claim contributes to the image we, as a community, >project to the world. Better level that charge at a duplicitous, desultory, and detached mainstream, first. Successful, that good projection we'd all desire is enhanced. I think you'd blame the leaf rot on the plant, and not the conditions in which it is rooted. The fringe exists to fill a void created by that mainstream, not the reverse of that, as is commonly accepted and you imply here. >We increase the "giggle factor" by >allowing the nut cases to speak for us. ...you mean the ones that the 'mainstream' portrays... those are the guys that see the BIG air... >High quality research and information is available yet is rarely >found on shows like Art Bell and Jeff Rense because... the >producers and directors are myopic. I don't think they're even _there_, Ms. Hebert. CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX, and NBC are AWASH with producers and directors and how are _they_ more forthcoming for it? >They see only that which >fits what I have come to call the "UFO/alien paradigm". That's the mainstream you're talking about, forgetting the paranormal enabler, and it is a valid subject that is dismissed and ridiculed as the production of a fringe not getting near _enough_ attention. >If it >looks like a UFO, flies like a UFO, acts like a UFO, then it >must _be_ a UFO and is therefore, news. Works for me! [g]. I'd have the mainstream think like that! >Any being which cannot >be identified as human must come from another planet or be a >new, exotic species. Anything suggesting otherwise is not part >of the "UFO/alien paradigm" and virtually invisible to those who >sell sensationalism . As long as the media stays locked into the >UFO/alien paradigm, so will the public. This is why nothing >really changes, it's a viscous circle. Well -- shooting the piano player for playing a song he doesn't 'know' is bad is going to make those piano players real scarce after a while, don't you think? Lehmberg@snowhill.com ~~=D6~~ EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his VSN URL. http://www.alienview.net JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually. He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail. $350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected! "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, scourged by the scabrously specious scurrilous.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp