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