UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 21

Re: Media & The Truth

From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood.nul>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:42:38 EST
Archived: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:57:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Media & The Truth


>From: Tom King <tomking2030.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:53:17 +0000
>Subject: Re: Media & The Truth

>>From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:03:49 EST
>>Subject: Re: Media & The Truth

>>>From: Tom King <tomking2030.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:51:49 +0000
>>>Subject: Re: Media & 'Truth'

<snip>

>Paul, not your company but in 98% of all producers in the U.S.
>operate in that manner. They simply don't blindly fly to your
>house, hire a union cameraman and a sound guy hoping you have
>something interesting to say about UFOs. They already sized you
>up and have some idea of how you'll fit into their program
>before they book airline tickets to your town. So their mind is
>made up about you before the cameras arrive to interview you. I
>can tell it the second the camera crews arrive because I'm
>sizing them up. They're body language, demeanor and first
>impressions speak volumes to seasoned investigators dealing with
>tv producers getting their UFO cherry popped. When the Discovery
>Channel turned up in 1997 the director already figured out the
>sighting while his cameraman was setting up. Bill Hamilton and I
>knew the story was going to be slanted and thought about
>ditching the tv producers and getting the hell out of there, but
>we didn't.

You should have - just because you didn't have the good sense to
do so at the time, don't assume that all the rest of us are like
that. As I said in a previous post, nobody puts a gun to an
interviewees head. If the producer is giving you a bad vibe,
walk away.

My first two girlfriends turned out to be... well, not what I
had thought they were. I didn't just pick up my ball and go home
(no double entendre intended, although with the new Bond flick
being released, it is that time of year!), I kept looking (and
eventually found the right girl). The same applies for
television documentaries.

Here endeth the home-spun wisdom.

<snip>

>There are airtime slots they need to fill between those
>commercials. 3 cheap but interesting UFO videos need to be
>licensed, real or not don't matter to the producer in most cases
>since they call it "eyecandy" anyway. Network Execs would rather
>see a crappy model hanging from strings than an authentic UFO
>video at night. Its brings in more viewers, raises the price of
>those commercials and has "conflict"

Again, just not so. You give me or any producer an 'authentic'
UFO video at night (and by authentic, I mean one which a
substantial majority of ufologists can agree is not faked) and
it will get on the air. Guaranteed. The first producer who finds
one that everybody agrees is genuine will be both rich and a
multi-award winner.

By the way, 'eyecandy' is the kind of word that non film and
television industry people think those of us in the industry use
all the time. Nothing could be further from the truth. I haven't
used 'eyecandy' since yesterday afternoon, and then I only used
it twice!

>>>These shows are not here to solve anything or present
>>>ground breaking material. They're merely 48 minutes of filler in-
>>>between the commercials($$money$$) and that's what its all about
>>>to the TV producer, the network, and the 5 people that own the
>>>media.

>>I make my own films, pre-licensed to a network. Not once in four
>>years has a network ever interfered in my productions. As for
>>the 'five people', I've never met them, just as I've never, to
>>my knowledge, met anyone from MJ-12, to whom one private
>>correspondent suggested I had basically sold my soul. The kind
>>of person for whom you definitely need legal protection!

>http://www.nowfoundation.org/communications/tv/mediacontrol.html

>Check the link, I think most know the media is controlled or
>owned by a handful of people. Their annual revenue is measured
>in the billions! Yet they all claim their productions are on
>limited budgets and us poor people need to "help them out". &$%#
>'em.

Again, you need to differentiate between those of us who make
the films and those who license them. The broadcasters just
provide the money (at least in Canada) - we make the films.
There is a world of difference between an independent production
company and a network.

I can agree with you on one thing, however - I wish 'they' would
spend a little more on licensing the film! I'd be happy to
license all sorts of UFO videos then.

>>What I have the most trouble understanding - in my final post on
>>the subject - is the difficulty some folks have with 'conflict',
>>as if it didn't exist in the UFO field. A quick perusal of the
>>UFO UpDates Archive should be enough to disabuse anyone of that
>>notion. I say again - a UFO film that portrays 'conflict' (or
>>would you prefer 'debate') accurately reflects the way things
>>are. Kevin Randle and Stan Friedman both agree that something
>>extraterrestrial happened at Roswell. They disagree about
>>specifics. That's conflict. There are still people who think Bob
>>Lazar is telling the truth, and many others who think he's a
>>serial liar. It's perfectly legitimate to portray these
>>differences.

>Paul, I think people are sick of news/entertain style that
>dominates the media nowadays. The hardcore group wants to see
>just the facts without Joe Nickel's comments on a case he never
>investigated. He adds nothing of value to the 'entertainment'
>since most of his testimony is based on things he didn't study.

I agree that Nickel often seems uniformed, but I'm not talking
about the Nickel's of the world. Again, you fail to deal with my
point - what do you do with a guy like Lazar? On that one issue,
Stan could clearly be labelled a sceptic (or, I would suggest, a
debunker, in the truest sense of the word). On MJ-12, or Gerald
Anderson, Kevin Randle is a sceptic / debunker.  These are
contentious issues, that generate 'conflict'. Should a
documentary that is talking about these issues simply ignore the
alternative viewpoint? Or abductions. That is a hotly debated
topic. Should I, or any producer, ignore the dissenters?

>>Or would you prefer an audience of sheep? I have more faith in
>>people, that they can weigh both sides of an issue, and reach
>>their own conclusions. And, before you say that we producers
>>don't present both sides of the equation, I must add that I have
>>further faith that people are capable of seeing when they are
>>being snowed, and will instinctively react against it. If they
>>see only one side, they will seek out the other.

>We aren't all sheep just because we realize the foolish
>debunkers don't belong in a UFO story to balance it. Thats
>simply adding BS to the story to satify the Network Execs. Not
>everyone is a network puppet.

Nor is everyone a 'true believer'. And I think that's the point.
Many ufologists I've met have a tendency to lump everyone into
one of two camps - 'us' or 'them' - when in reality it's a field
that is rife with disagreement (as should be expected with any
scientific endeavour). To suggest that one should ignore those
differences - 'let's just show up at Tom King's house, interview
him, and take everything he says at face value' - is a
disservice to the people you are trying to reach. The ufologists
that I respect are the one's who are willing to engage in a
debate, whether with themselves or with someone like Nickel. And
if you think Nickel is wrong, prove it during the debate (I
agree it shouldn't be too hard). Simply labelling someone who
disagrees with you as 'foolish' borders on intellectual fascism,
and does little to advance the search for truth.

>>>Paul you summed it all up just like I thought. With or without
>>>credible people the TV producers got a job to do. Their gonna
>>>get their soundbites from somebody, anybody. I'll be sitting on
>>>the sidelines most of the time. I've got burned enough I'm not
>>>helping TV producers get rich off of me. I have the internet -
>>>what do I need TV for?

>>Whether you agree with them or not, the aforementioned certainly
>>strike me as credible people. As for the Internet, I'll assume
>>you meant that in jest. If there is one thing worse - and more
>>dangerous - than television, it is the Internet, where the gold
>>is buried in a thousand tonnes of dross.

>Paul at least I have control of my website. I don't have some
>slimy Network Execs that know nothing about UFOs telling me I
>need to have Joe Nickel's comments all over my website to
>balance it or Subway will back out of sponsorship.

If they don't know anything (a category I suspect the vast
majority of the general populace falls into), isn't it the
'responsibility' of the ufologist to inform rather than to
simply condemn.

As for any website, a person can put whatever they want on it.
The great advantage of the Internet is that people are free to
seek out the alternative view themselves.

The great danger is that they won't.


With respect,

Paul Kimball


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com