|
From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:27:48 -0400 Archived: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 05:58:59 -0500 Subject: Media & 'Truth' [was: Re: Sci-Fi Channel] >From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:24:50 EST >Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel >>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:37:52 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Sci-Fi Channel <snip> >>Yeah, it's a problem. It seems we should set up an advisory >>committee for the media and production companies and then send >>out a circular to as many of those as we can telling them about >>it. Like the BBB of ufology. Trouble is, who decides who should >>be spokespeople for the phenomenon? It could open a real can of >>worms, leading to favoritism and acrimony. The best bet would be >>a directory with each listed, a bio, their bona fides and their >>field of endeavour. I can't see it working though. >Don: >You know, it's interesting who gets on television. Late last >night I was watching an episode of Ricki Lake (don't ask why!) >where the subject was people with strange obsessions. One of the >women had an 'obsession' with aliens, claiming several sightings >and contacts over the years. The expert they had on the show? >Joe Nickell. Cut away shots? To those members of the audience >snickering as the woman spoke. The other guests? Witches and >people who believe Elvis is still alive (in the literal, as >opposed to the figurative or commercial sense). The message? >This lady, and others like her, are nuts! >The point is that many production companies and other >entertainment entities have already made up their minds about >what is 'true' and what is not (as well as the corollary 'what >will sell and what will not') before they begin shooting, and >will slot in whoever best serves their purpose. Kevin Randle, >Stan Friedman, Richard Hall, or any one of a number of people >I've met or read, could have offered much more to the >discussion, or at least been there to balance things out with >Nickell, but that's obviously not what the producers wanted. >There are a lot of serious companies out there, however. A >suggestion - a notice of some sort to all production companies >and applicable broadcasters in the US and Canada (there's a lot >- never said it would be easy!) of the UFO UpDates might be the >way to go. Seems like a read through this List would be a pretty >good place for someone who's serious about the subject to start >their research. Hi Paul, Joe Nickell has made himself a career out of being an uninformed debunker. If it's on the cusp of believability this nutball has a prosaic/kneejerk explanation for it - usually without any first hand information. Too often we see people getting a say who don't have a flying clue what the hell they are talking about - but that doesn't show up to the average viewer. Maybe we don't do the time ourselves. We just show up. I and several others raised some concerns, quite strongly, recently with one production company's treatment of the phenomenon and several refused to do the program on principle. I walked into it like a Deer into headlights, not knowing the background. We gotta stop being walked on - do our homework before hand. I guess we are too trusting. BTW - Paul, what the heck are you doing watching Ricky Lake? If you are not careful its a short slippery step down the slope to Jerry Springer. :) Don
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp