From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:22:56 -0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:41:44 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Magazine UK [was: BLURFOs] - Miller


>From: Greg Sandow <greg.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 14:25:14 -0500
>Subject: Re: BLURFOs

>>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


Hello Greg,

>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.

And please point to exactly where I said that.

I said I didn't care for them and wasn't into the subject.

>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.

Leaving aside the subject of ufology and UFO Magazine for a
moment - sat on my backside in north west England, I have heard
of the Enquirer. And it's not published here. I have never heard
of People magazine. What does that tell you?

And incidentally, the Enquirer has an interesting history within
ufology that is a little more soundly based then some might
imagine.

>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.

Greg. You're either very brave or very insensitive. I used the
word "elitist" in my reply to Ray and that certainly applies
here too.

People that read UFO magazines are not stupid. On the contrary,
they demonstrate an ability to look beyond their immediacy and
acknowledge that there might be more to "all this" than the
arrogant amongst us on this planet can deal with. They have
broader horizons and a greater imagination. They are likely to
be less rigid in their outlook and more accepting, both of
people and of the strange and unusual.

They are not frightened. They are likely to be better balanced
and more rounded individuals. They don't need to be spoon fed a
diet of "sensational crap".

>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.

This is not relevant to the argument. It seems your publisher
friend is still prepared to publish "rubbish" except on this
occasion, the objection was to the writer and his skills and not
the tabloid, gossip mongering, salacious nature of the subject.

All this says is that there is honour amongst thieves after all.


Stuart Miller