UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 21

Re: BLURFOs - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg.nul>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 14:25:14 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:05:26 -0500
Subject: Re: BLURFOs - Sandow


>From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 12:19:57 -0500
>Subject: Re: BLURFOs

>>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:40:54 -0000
>>Subject: Re: BLURFOs


Ray Stanford is completely right, in the following:

>>If you have ever edited a magazine, and when I say "a
>>magazine", I mean one intended for the newstands - as opposed
>>to one to give out to a few like-minded friends - then you
>>will know that you don't restrict it's contents to just what
>>you would like to see in it.

>I understand what you're saying, but no not at all agree with
>such 'taking' of an uninformed public with photographic
>artifacts (i.e., 'orbs', as clearly demythologized by Neff
>and others before him) presented in a context by which they
>may be misunderstood as images of truly anomalous objects or
>phenomena.

<snip>

>In maintaining the position the magazine has taken concerning
>such things, some persons who are doing serious, objective,
>and scientifically credible UFO research increasingly cringe
>at submitting an even highly popularized article for the magazine.
>How do I know? I have talked to some of them who have
>considered and rejected submission of interesting and, IMO,
>evidential and important manuscripts.

>Don't tell us that respect for readership and credibility is
>not the best editorial policy in the long run.

I've worked for mass-market publications. No, the editors might
not like everything that goes in them. But you don't print
things you know aren't true or credible, just to appeal to
readers. Then your magazine becomes junk, and intelligent people
don't know whether to believe anything that's in it. Then your
credibility drops, maybe to zero, and - at least in the mass
market - your circulation may drop, too. People magazine, for
instance, is different from the National Enquirer, and because
of all its advertising, probably makes a lot more money. But if
what they printed wasn't credible, the advertisers would
disappear, and the magazine would be in trouble. Result: People
may print celebrity-oriented gossip, but you can trust what you
read in it. Not so the Enquirer.

Of course, maybe UFO magazines are different. Maybe intelligent
people, by and large, don't read them. Maybe the only way to
succeed with one commercially is to publish sensational crap.
I'm quite serious about this. Maybe the economic model for UFO
magazines says you have to publish junk to survive.

But then Stuart should say so. I had the wonderful experience,
recently, of having dinner with the head of one of the top
commercial book publishing houses in the US. He's a sharp,
commercial guy, whose company publishes best seller after best
seller. And yet he told a lot of stories of books he wouldn't
publish. In one case, he was offered a book about a celebrity, a
man whose name on the cover of the book would guarantee sales -
especially since the author had access to formerly confidential
papers, and also people in the celebrity's life who'd never
talked about their lives with him before.

But this publisher judged that the writer wasn't good or
credible enough. So he passed on what surely would be a best
seller, simply because he couldn't stand behind the book's
quality. It really is possible to have integrity, and sitll
succeed in the mass market.


Greg Sandow




[ 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