Lauren Weinstein: If MTV Calls, Hang Up 761
Lauren Weinstein writes "Usually when one gets a call to participate in a news-oriented television program, subterfuge isn't a worry. But in the brave new world of 'newsertainment' -- a blurring of news and entertainment -- you really need to watch your back. Herein is the sordid tale (posted last night to Dave Farber's "IP" list) of what recently happened to me -- and my narrow escape -- when Viacom/MTV Networks came calling, asking for my help to educate the world's youth about important topics (in this case, the scourge of spam). Be warned. It could happen to you!"
For those that just read the summary (Score:5, Informative)
Comedy Central also produces the great The Daily Show [comedycentral.com], which I'm sure a few guests are upset they appeared on after it airs. (Host Jon Stewart recently jokingly asked on the show why anyone is still willing to appear). It's more widely known, though, and they seem to be open about who they are.
For those that would like to read the article (Score:5, Informative)
Enjoy.
Re:For those that would like to read the article (Score:5, Funny)
What happens if you go on the show (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.equalccw.com/thedebateshowfiasco.html [equalccw.com].
Not pretty.
Re:What happens if you go on the show (Score:4, Informative)
Bart Coleman
Producer - The Debate Show
(323) 957-7601 tel
bart@debateshow.com
Following are email addresses of various "handlers" who will sucker you in and keep you in the dark. Might want to cc them all on any comments you have for them.
jeff@debateshow.com
erika@debateshow.com
gary
wendy@debateshow.com
lauren@deba
bart@debateshow.com
Re:What happens if you go on the show (Score:5, Informative)
bart@wexlervideo.com
So I just thought I would let you all know about it so you can send your comments there also since his @debateshow.com addy does not work.
Re:What happens if you go on the show (Score:4, Insightful)
And when they come for you, how will be left to defend you? Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make it right that that person is treated in a way you wouldn't want to be.
Re:For those that just read the summary (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:For those that just read the summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For those that just read the summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For those that just read the summary (Score:3, Interesting)
So what if John Edwards announced his presidential candidacy on the show? "No one took it seriously," says Stewart. "After he said, 'I'm announcing that I'm running for president,' I said, 'I have to warn you we are a fake show, so you might have to do this again somewhere'." [msn.com]
Re:For those that just read the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are ever asked to guest on a show you aren't familiar with, it is imperative that you get familiar with it. Any information you get from the producers should be in writing. If they insist on using only telephone or editable email (a red flag, BTW), print it out as a contract and ask that it be signed.
Re:For those that just read the summary (Score:5, Informative)
Candid Camera (which is still on production on the Pax network, being led by Peter Funt, the son of Alan Funt) to this day still has a policy of junking any tape for which they aren't able to get a release form from the subject of the joke. Therefore, they have to keep their pranks so tame that nobody will be too mad at them after it's over.
Cops obscures the faces of anybody who refuses to sign the waiver when presented with it. It has nothing to do with eventual convictions or lack there of.
I've seen Ads for this show.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks like it is gonna suck. Ass.
Most likely it'll flop after 3 episodes. And good, it looks rediculusly annoying.
It'll go in the pile of CC shows I hate, along with Colin Quinn's Tough Crowd. Which I'm amazed hasn't been canceled yet. Futurama would be so much nicer there!
Re:I Loooooove the Daily Show (Score:4, Funny)
Then there're the occasional time they continually change the background. Like the other night when Colbert was covering the G-8 summit and got moved from Savannah, GA to St. Louis, MO in about 3 seconds during a cut to Stewart. Or the time Steve Correll (sp?) left Bagdad because he didn't realize the scope of our impending invasion, and successive cuts showed him packing up his stuff in a hotel room, in an aiport, on a plane, etc. They have a lot of fun with that thing...
Re:I Loooooove the Daily Show (Score:4, Funny)
The BEST scene they did was when Colbert was live 'from Mars.' He'd wait 20 seconds before responding to Stewart "because of the transmission delay." I was literally on the floor laughing my ass off.
Ahh, good times...
"Not 'gay' Jon, 'aristocratic'." (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yes I did, and I think it qualifies as a best thing ever. Click here [comedycentral.com], and then the bottom left-hand corner link ("Prince Charles Scandal"). You'll need a RealPlayer plugin, but it's worth it.
Re:I Loooooove the Daily Show (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Loooooove the Daily Show (Score:3, Interesting)
We have one (Score:3, Informative)
There are quite a variety of PBS shows out there that are pretty authoratative.
Yes, at times their vaguely socialist emotional bias pops up pretty heavily, but they actually do indepth exploration of issues and interview many people ignored by the mainstream press.
And, even though the P stands for "Public" the government funding they get is miniscule to non-existent. Their customers are not advertisors, not some mega-conglomerate owner, but their audience. If people don't value their cove
Re:For those that just read the summary (Score:3, Funny)
Re:For those that just read the summary (Score:3, Informative)
The Daily Show is generally (although not fanatically) liberal, and of course audience is mostly liberal. But when an extremely conservative guy wnt on the show to promote a book about how Bush is really a very smart man and he needs to get some respect, Jon
Re:For those that just read the summary (Score:3)
It does when you remember most kids learn English these days from TV and not from *reading*. Since "would have" is often shortened to "would've", it's easily to see how regional accents could result in "would of".
Re:For those that just read the summary (Score:4, Interesting)
None of this confrontational crap in the mould of Jerry Springer or Oprah (well, OK... Just one, involving a bloke with "Bad AIDS" because he caught it having unprotected gay sex, rather than "Good AIDS" (which would've been caught innocently in a blood transfusion).
Just duping celebrities into speaking for fake causes like GAFAFWISP, an organisation setup to warn people about heavy electricity, or Cake, a new drug from eastern europe... Bernard Manning saying with all sincerity "Remember kids, cake is a made up drug, but it's not made of plants, it's made of chemicals, by sick bastards"
Another one was "cannibliss". A fake japanese advert shown to celebrities asking for their comments. (Canibliss was a filtration system, dog smokes spliff, blood cycled through filter to a human sitting next to him)
how silly. (Score:4, Interesting)
from the if-only-it-had-been-live-instead dept.
No shit, that would've been fun. She (I assume it's a she) could've gotten on there and gone on and on about how the "penis enlargement pills" she bought "worked great for her" and how she "wishes she had a boyfriend so she could let him try them too". He heh heh. But then one day "it fell off" and so now she's turned to the side of the spam-fighters. And she has it in a box offstage, should she go get it?
Seriously, I consider *MSNBC* to be "newsertainment", so you can imagine my opinion of Mtv talk shows. *shiver*. I gave up on Mtv sometime in high school, a long time ago, once they stopped showing actual music.
Mtv is like a giant parabolic reflector, collecting idiocy from far and wide and focusing it into a small rectangular screen. (Yeah I know, RTFA, it was actually Comedy Central but it's all a big heaping serving from the same vegetard stew).
Re:how silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Since his server's been nuked, you can read a little about him here. [coasttocoastam.com]
Punk'd? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they punk Ray Lewis (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Punk'd? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Punk'd? (Score:4, Insightful)
This goes straight into one of my iron clad personal rules:
Never, ever, ever, ever, sign a video release wavier.
Re:Punk'd? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is also an example where a very aware star declared "If this is a joke, I want out of this car right now." She could have brought the stunt driver driving the car up on kidnapping charges (and pulled Ashton and everybody else involved in the
Re:Punk'd? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah only the most important people in the world get Punk'd, you know, the scientists, greatest of politicians and the humanitarian philanthropists.
> I love how you have revealed your secret fantasy of being important enough to be punk'd, but having the brains and wherewithal to escape their set ups!
I aim to please.
Here is the sordid article text (Score:5, Informative)
The L.A. Times article (avoid folding the long URL!):
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-adfi-fr eston20j un20,1,5581013.story?
coll=la-home-headlines online for now (registration required) tells the story of
Tom Freston, chairman of Viacom's MTV Networks. The article suggests that Tom's
style for MTV et al. might be the saving grace for Paramount and perhaps the
rest of the entertainment industry.
If MTV's model is the solution, we're in for big trouble. Hear my saga and avoid
the fate that almost befell yours truly -- experts and spokespeople in the IP
readership, you could be next!
A few weeks ago, I got a call from a producer who identified herself as being
with MTV Networks' "The Debate Project" - -- who wanted to book me onto a new
debate format show in production, to be taped a few days hence. She described
the show (which she never actually specifically named) as oriented toward young
people about important topics, with guests who were experts in their respective
fields. They wanted me to debate a known spammer (who they wouldn't identify at
the time) regarding the scourge of spam. It would be fun she implied, since the
audience would of course be on my side.
While MTV Net producing a show like this seemed a bit odd, it's not unheard of
for them to do topical programming. She assured me the program would definitely
air on an MTV Network but wasn't sure which one yet. Odd, but I've gotten
stranger calls from more ordinary news-oriented programs.
They sealed the deal by promising to send a car so I wouldn't have to hassle
with driving in to Hollywood from The Valley through late Friday afternoon
traffic, and even said they'd throw in $200 (egads -- payment for a "news"
appearance -- unheard of in my experience!)
OK, I'll bite -- sounds more interesting than typical interviews anyway. Then
followed more phone calls from other staffers questioning me at length on the
topic of spam, an e-mailed message with similar questions, and finally all was
set to go. They were really excited about my joining them the next day they kept
saying, and would call me in the morning before sending the car.
That same Thursday night, with the show scheduled for Friday, I was increasingly
uncomfortable. There was a bad feeling I just couldn't shake, an almost animal
instinct of something amiss that I couldn't put my finger on.
When the show had originally called, I had done some cursory googling but
couldn't fine anything relevant. This didn't seem too unusual for a show in
production but not yet on air. Now I started googling in depth.
At first I found nothing again. But then I started working backwards from the
contact phone numbers I had for the show's production staff. This time I hit pay
dirt, and while the pages unscrolled on my screen a cold chill ran down my
spine.
As the recent, angry testimonials I had found recounted, with a matching of
modus operandi that left no chance for error, the show on which I was about to
appear was a fraud.
Not really a debate at all, the show is actually a program for Comedy Central
(yes, an MTV/Viacom network) called "Crossballs" -- and its sole purpose is the
embarrassment and humiliation of the expert guests who are brought on expecting
a legitimate discussion program.
Crossballs is a rigged "reality" show, where real guests, who have been kept in
the dark about the show's real format, are paired off against actors (playing
the debate opponents) for the amusement of the live audience. The stories I read
from persons recently on the show included descriptions of crude,
sexually-oriented verbal attacks (and worse, like being handed various sexual
"apparatus") and concerns that their reputations would be ruined once the shows
aired.
As the alien commander said in "Plan 9 From Outer Space": "That was TOO close!"
In a few hours I was scheduled t
coward (Score:4, Funny)
I would have loved an opportunity like this. I would have actually showed up and pretended once they started taping, that I was actually an anti-SPAM (the food from Hormel) advocate, or something equally goofy. At least you could have stood up in front of the studio audience and made a nice speech denouncing the quality of tv programming and how out of touch Viacom is with honest and decent programming.
Instead you just bowed out... hell you didn't even let them send the car. Think of the potential. You could have called up an enemy and sent him on the show, or found a homeless guy and told him he could get a free meal and a ride for participating. The possibilities were endless.
Re:coward (Score:5, Insightful)
It was NOT LIVE.
If you did something clever back at them, they would edit it to make you look like a retard.
Re:coward (Score:5, Funny)
If I were in that situation and I felt it was a trap, I'd say F*CK every other word. Let them try to edit that out.
You could pull a "Tim Robbins" and wear a t-shirt that says "This TV show is a SHAM" or some other really nasty image/saying. Let them try to edit that out!
You could call up the local obnoxious radio morning crew and tell them of the plan and work with them to cook up a dirty counter-trick. There's a pair of those sleazeballs in every area that live for this kind of stuff.
ENDLESS POSSIBILITY FOR FUN... and it was all blown.... too bad.
Re:coward (Score:4, Insightful)
Best to not waste time with it or, as someone else said, send in some guy off the street for a free ride.
Re:coward (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you misbehaved on a comedy show, that you KNEW was setting you up?
God forbid any working professionals have a sense of humor, the f*cking world might collapse.
It's that kind of mentality that makes this world a sick, sick, sick place. Yes, really.
Re:coward (Score:3, Informative)
Re:coward (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it wasn't being filmed live, but disregarding that, one could always show up and inform the other guests whats going on, and then leave before the show starts. Let the legitimate guests in on the secret before they're embarassed...
Re:coward (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether it's live is irrelevant. Obviously it wouldn't be live.
But if they're paying you $200 to make a fool out of you, imagine how much it probably cost them to set up and produce that show. If you showed up and made every bit of your footage unuseable, it would probably cost them thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.
People harping about them editing you out of context to look like an idiot is much ado about nothing. If you refused to speak, what's the worse they could do? Or if you wore some t-shirt under another shirt that you took off once they set everything up, that had some message that they couldn't broadcast (maybe a Slashdot.org t-shirt or the logo of their competitors). They could block it out but it wouldn't be too difficult to make it hard for them to use any of the footage... you could move around making the camera people go nuts trying to keep you in frame. There are lots of things.
I think spreading the word about the show among the expert community will help, but it wouldn't hurt them as bad as spoiling an entire episode they had meticulously set up.
Re:coward (Score:3, Interesting)
Other interviewsee of note:
Amazing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Geez, lighten up (Score:5, Informative)
The good satirical shows (like the Daily Show) merely allow genuine whackos and phonies to make fools of themselves; I'm sure there are also lowbrow shows which try to ambush and victimize unsuspecting guests as well. I dunno which sort this "Crossballs" will be (though there's one or two in the cast whom I know don't need to be doing crap to pay rent, so there's hope) but regardless, her reaction seems to be a bit over the top...
What the hell is "newsertainment"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What the hell is "newsertainment"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but these are just terms created by people hoping to sound like their profession actually means something.
The actual term is 'crap.'
Now edutainment can, on good days, mean something truly educational and valuable like 'Sesame Street' or 'Square One,' but believe me -- NOT if its on an MTV/Viacom channel....
Is this Jerky Boys gone Wild? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's disturbing is that, in the story, a Pew survey was cited stating that [people-press.org]: Even worse, they asked a local sociology professor from UC Davis about the trend, and she said:
Re:Is this Jerky Boys gone Wild? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is this Jerky Boys gone Wild? (Score:3, Insightful)
The younger generation has realized this, so they figure they might as well have some fun while watching
Re:Is this Jerky Boys gone Wild? (Score:5, Interesting)
i feel that i agree with his assessment.
Re:Is this Jerky Boys gone Wild? (Score:3)
MTV... (Score:5, Funny)
I want to join the fun (Score:3, Funny)
According to President Bush, President Bush has never made a mistake. Also, should a mistake be made, President Bush will be unable to recall the mistake or any events that happened before and after said mistake. President Bush also would like you to know that any fact brought forth must meet with President Bush's approval. Failure of the fact to be approved makes the fact false. Only President Bush approved facts will be considered truthful.
Of course...I don't know if I want to be killed as an "enemy combatant"
Re:I want to join the fun (Score:5, Insightful)
"The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything... That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about."
source: wikiquote [wikipedia.org]
Dodging the issue (Score:3, Interesting)
Below is an example of the 'suppor our troops' meme as propaganda, from the Nuremburg trials. Apologies for the slight bending of Godwin's law.
"Naturally the
Re:I want to join the fun (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I want to join the fun (Score:3, Insightful)
You are so wrong, at least according to the DOJ and Ashcroft last week. They are using the Patriot Act to prosecute the CIA contractor accused of beating an Afghan detainee to death with a Flashlight. The DOJ could find no other way to prosecute
Re:I want to join the fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I want to join the fun (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I want to join the fun (Score:3, Informative)
That's like saying that the killer was arrested for wearing white shoes after Labor Day.
Brett Bursey was arrested for trespassing. For security reasons, the Secret Service restricts access to public property when the President is visiting. They do that because in the past people with an axe to grind have had a bad habit of taking potshots at our various C
Re:I want to join the fun (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, it is extremely hard to see why Mr Thurmond has picked on Mr Bursey out of all the people in the Secret Service zone. None of the other protesters with him was arrested. Neither were any of the several hundred supporters of the president who were holding equally dangerous (but pro-Bush) signs as they stood near the hangar where the president was to speak.
The prosecutors say that Mr Bursey was not in a special "free-speech zone" that was set up for protesters half a mile from the hangar. The pro-Bush people did not need to be there because they were not protesting. Mr Bursey told the cops, defiantly, that he was under the impression that the whole of America was a free-speech zone.
Is the Economist article biased? Yes. Is there still valuable truth there? Yes. Is there truth behind your arguments? Yes. But I see a lot of rhetoric and misdirection in what you say.
Re:I want to join the fun (Score:5, Funny)
Viacom (Score:5, Insightful)
That must be a nice company to work for.
Humiliating experts? (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer, of course, is obvious: most people aren't experts. Most people aren't geniuses. Most people are within one standard deviation of the mean and are pretty satisfied with their abilities. Hobbes was right when he wrote that the surest proof that humans are approximately equal in intelligence is that most people are satisfied with their level of ability, and their is no better indicator of a fair distribution than when each person is satisfied with their share.
Now, I could see supporting a show that took bogus experts as the target - i.e., those people who pretend to be able to talk to their dog, or to share karma with plants, use crystals to heal, etc. (but note that, under the abovementioned definition of knowledge that these people aren't really experts since they lack knowledge). That might be fun to watch. At the very least, it would serve the greater good of society by providing an intellectual function.
But humilating smart people just so that some moron with barely enough intelligence to operate the remote can get his kicks? Bah. Give me the philosopher-kings of Plato anyday.
Re:Humiliating experts? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see any problem with this, or with shows like the Daily Show. They are fun, and they people they pick on even can have fun too, if they just will roll with it and take a joke.
John McCain is a great example. Back in 2000, they decided to pick on him and his wife. They got on his bus, asked him BS questions, and so on. He was nice and had fun the whole time. This, of course, invited more jokes on him in the future. It also lead to them rather liking him, and making him a fairly frequent guest where he does get to speak his mind to a latge number of young voters.
Really, the problem with many experts is that they are so focused on their issue, their area of expertise, that nothing about it is funny. They act like they are on a divine mission or something and if you poke fun at it, you are benieth contempt.
Well guess what? The world is FULL of "most important issues" and "things nobody can laugh at" and most of them are funny to somebody else. People need to lighten up a bit and learn that yes, you are funny too and no, you don't hold the One True Way and the moral righteousness that is untouchable.
Re:Humiliating experts? (Score:3, Interesting)
"I read The Onion every week and I love it! However this week you joked about (BLANK). (BLANK) is just not funny. (BLANK) is a very serious matter and not something to joke about. So please in the future don't joke about it. Thank you."
Of coarse BLANK was different every week and about every topic The Onion would make fun of. Sigh.
Re:Humiliating experts? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except of course the really nutty people they have on the program. In which case, the Daily Show plays them straight and lets them hang themselves.
Re:Humiliating experts? (Score:5, Insightful)
The situation this article is talking about is not about having fun(Why wouldn't they tell her the actuall premise of the show outright?). This is about creating a culture that demeans intellectual people. I think that mainstream culture today glorifies joe sixpack/beergut. That in my opinion is wrong.
Re:Humiliating experts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Humiliating experts? (Score:3, Interesting)
Would the TV company be willing to write off all the investment in that filming should the victim object? To destroy all footage? Somehow I don't think so, but that is one thing they should be prepared to so should the victim demand it. If they take a flyer which is so likely to humiliate or annoy someone then that persons already neglected feelings should be observed.
Even so, consider the case of a person whose time is limited but is willing to provi
Re:Humiliating experts? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're totally right. I really hope the next time I'm watching CNN and they're interviewing a WMD expert or talking about the Sudan genocide, they find a way to get some laughs out of it. I mean, lighten up, people!
Look, if you're interested in anything more important than MTV or the useless crap in People magazine, you're going to have to live with the occasional sober conversation. Some things are important enough that they need to be discussed, even though they're not funny at all.
The Daily Show is nothing like what is described here. One of Jon Stewart's most impressive talents is the way he manages to keep everything lighthearted and funny without humiliating his guests, even when he's making jokes at their expense. Everyone, including the guests, typically goes away with a smile.
Some of that is enlightened self-interest: a good guest is someone worth having on again, not someone you want to humiliate. But mostly it's just good lighthearted comedy (and good interviewing), which is so rare today.
Beware of any News Reporters (Score:5, Interesting)
I was waiting in a room off-stage for my appearance a little bit into the show, when the host instructed the staff to cut the feed to the room as the show started (Should've realized then). When it came time for me to come on, the host had prepped the scene for me to be immediately attacked by all involved. He supervised this extremely well, making sure to interrupt me, discount me or flat-out cut me off whenever I had a reasonable and logical statement or tried to defend myself (since his show was about expousing his view and not exploring anything). Watching the show at home later I see that he set this up from the beginning (when my view was cut).
After seeing the tactics first hand, I could see how this show was a sham all along. Every episode had the same strategy, that now was transparent to me.
Be very suspicious of the media when they come looking for you, they quite simply will lie to get what they want out of you - and make no mistake they will set you up, sell you out or edit the whole thing into something unrecognizable without any qualms or remorse.
BTW- It was "Town Meeting" on KOMO4, Seattle, WA
Re:Beware of any News Reporters (Score:5, Insightful)
What gets me is when someone on the Right claims that a Left group does this, but denies O'Reilly of doing the same tactics.
Or the new "Michael Moore Hates America" movie, which from all appearances does an exposé on how manipulative and lying a documentary can be. Of course, the director misses the point that by doing a video documentary, which of course is a selective medium, the director is doing the same "tactics" that Moore does. You know, taking people out of context, rushing them on issues, manipulating their words, etc. (of course, the overall idea of Moore's Bowling for Columbine documentary which I saw was the use of Fear to manipulate and control the populace, the media's partake in it, and the government's use of it. As is F. 9/11 looks to be going more into).
Also as someone who has made a documentary, the medium is very maleable. I'd never be in someone elses video actually, and I understand why moore wouldn't be in the "anti moore" documentary.
Anyway, I am sorry you got manipulated by that circumstance, thought I would throw in my two cents.
Re:Beware of any News Reporters (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet if some 'evil corporate CEO' was to refuse to be in a Moore documentary, that would be proof that they are evil, right?
I've been on TV a few times, but I've made sure to only be on when they want to twist the story the same way I want to twist it... otherwise they're only going to make you look bad whatever you do.
Of course there are other tactics that work: I've heard that when Tony
Re:Beware of any News Reporters (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is, CEOs are usually busy doing something, and most of them don't want to be in a movie that incriminates them. The fact that they don't want to answer questions with no preparation time doesn't make them evil.
Yeesh.
Re:Beware of any News Reporters (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, what if that *is* the point. Then, he's hit it right on.
Re:Beware of any News Reporters--My Experience (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the early '90s, I was involved in the pro-life movement (don't want to get into a debate about that now, what matters is the way reporters handled the story), and one of the things I did, being a good First Amendment type, was to test an injunction that said that certain name people or organizations, or anyone acting in concert with those individuals or groups, could not come within 30 feet of a particular abor
Even the "legitimate" shows are staged (Score:3, Interesting)
On a deeper level these shows are much like kingsnakes, in that they seek people that are looking for attention/notoriety/selfpromotion and they give it to them in spades. This one is however is apparently going over the line by a wide margin. Aside from the damage that could be done to the guests careers, divorces and murders have occured due to the ill considered actions of these shows (Jenny Jones outing a Homosexual unrequited love by example).
If there is any part of our society that needs to have its feat held to the fire its the news media. Wheather it be the financial press that serves as a megaphone for pump and dumpers (Forbes the capitolists tool) the political newsmedia ( you pick) or any other form of "reporting". Lack of malice isn't enough there has to be due dilligence when the results can and do prove devastating.
Avoid "lifestyle" reporters (Score:4, Informative)
My general position is that I'll always talk to the working press, but I blow off "lifestyle" reporters. Running a DARPA Grand Challenge team [overbot.com], I get a fair amount of press interest. Some of it is wierd. Playboy and Men's Life contacted me for interviews. There were documentary producers, including one guy with an Alcatraz fixation. (He'd done five TV documentaries on Alcatraz.)
Oh this is TOO funny! (Score:5, Informative)
You are kidding right? The news program that almost drove Audi out of business with it's false inaccurate reporting?[ http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/1115/6412145a_p
I thought the author was a bright guy, up until that comment. 60 minutes may have at one time been a respectable news magazine. That has not been the case for almost 2 decades IMHO. If 60 minutes knocks on your door and they have decided your "guilty", you have a better chance at getting your side of the story heard on cross balls.
In the end - isn't that whats the most sad?
cluge
AngryPeopleRule [angrypeoplerule.com]
Re:Oh this is TOO funny! (Score:4, Interesting)
Baloney - ask Audi how good their "journalism" is. Do some research. CBS/60 minutes never even apologized for their fraud.
If that show had aired in Germany, you could have sued CBS for presenting obviously fradualent and misleading evidence. The first amendament doesn't say you have to speak the truth. 60 minutes has been taking advantage of that fact for 20 plus years.
For every 1 "good" piece, I woudl see 2 heavily slanted and obvioulsy biased pieces of bovine feces. Those odds lead me to give up paying attention to the miserable excuse for "hard journalism" a long time ago. In college I used to do research before almost every 60 minutes episode for a class in world history. We would get a small description of the segments before they aired.
After that semester I never watched the program again. I was that dissapointed in them. Previously I had thought that such hard biases and bad reporting were aberations. After watching for a full semster and doing my own research - I came to the conclusion that it was the rule.
cluge
AngryPeopleRule [angrypeoplerule.com]
E-mail address listed? (Score:4, Funny)
For those who aren't familiar with Lauren Weinstei (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/12.html
Sauce for the goose (Score:4, Interesting)
to tape, edit, and broadcast the performance.
-- not a
The Daily Show tried to do this to me (Score:4, Interesting)
I was going to be doing something on the Daily Show apparently being pitted against the one and only Snotty Scotty Richter, the spammer now being hunted by the NY AG's office.
Within 6 hours of saying yes, I'd go on the show that monday, I spoke with my other admins and several of my advisors who warned me against it, and promptly e-mailed the producer back and said I'm sorry, but something has come up.
I avoided a rather bad sitation, from what I can see. Needless to say, I've been very careful since then on who I allow to interview me for spam fighting stuff and similar.
Re:The Daily Show tried to do this to me (Score:3, Insightful)
you missed a good opportunity (Score:3, Informative)
I might worry if the Daily Show wanted to interview me about a controversial subject, but for something as clearly one-sided as spam, I wouldn't hestitate to talk to them.
Remember the "Jean Poutine" endorsement for Bush? (Score:3, Informative)
In 2000, Rick Mercer [wikipedia.org] posed as a reporter and asked Bush for comments on Canadian Prime Minister "Jean Poutine's" endorsement of his candidacy for President [wikipedia.org]. Canadians start a trend again.
My general advice (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My general advice (Score:3, Informative)
Reminds me of some friends a while back (probably about a dozen years ago now), who agreed to be interviewed and photographed by our local paper, which was doing a story about homeschooling, which has been legal in Florida since the early 1980s. Anyway, one Sunday morning, they opened the local paper to find their photograph on the front page under the large point
Pity (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of my friends thrive on such programs. Punk'd is one of their favorites. I can't stand it. For those of you who have never heard of it, it airs on MTV. The premise of this show is the same as the debate show, except they take more extreme measures. Instead of arguing with you, they'll have your house repossessed and make you think you just lost your home, until the end of the show when they inform you it was only a joke. I've seen people start to cry on this show. Somehow, I'm not finding this funny!
Some people think of this as genius, I see it as a striving reach for attention. These people need help, I can't provide it, but someone has to.
Re:Pity (Score:5, Informative)
I don't have a problem with Punk'd but this Crossballs thing seems malicious. The guest's reputation is on the line.
Democracy in U.S.: Ridicule and bullying (Score:5, Insightful)
As highlighted by slashdot.org [slashdot.org], according to a mailing list posting [vortex.com] (mirror [lerfjhax.com]):
The nature of Crossballs is confirmed by a couple of other sources. According to a gopusa.com [gopusa.com] commentary:
And according to a June 15, 2004 story [digitalspy.co.uk] from digitalspy.co.uk, an entertainment newsblog:
In similar display of mockery, according to a Jun 5, 2004 dc.indymedia.org story [indymedia.org]:
The rules of /. club... (Score:4, Funny)
The second rule is
That said, does anyone have a mirror?
Re:The rules of /. club... (Score:3, Informative)
If I were him I would have called and said I'd be late and then not showed up. I have a hard time believing people find this stuff entertaining.
Entrapment as Comedy (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference, however, (as far as I can see) is that Brass Eye etc tend to have a good stance as their founding, i.e. to target the media's mass-hysteria around particular subjects (especially drug use, paedophiles etc), and mock not only their shock-tactic approach to manipulating the public, but also mock the approach that "celebrity" take when trying to advocate their own standpoints (to the point where they'll make any given "scientific" statement to make them out to be a positive public influence on the matter).
This show, however, seems to make its comedy focus as simply a vehicle for the public humiliation of known experts in a given field. How they do this, I don't know (having never seen the show), so I cannot comment on its extremity, but it does seem somewhat cruel without a differing message to counteract it.
Re:How did he know? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How did he know? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How did he know? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:if you're going on to a tv show.. (Score:3, Funny)
wtf I'd need 200 bucks then for? I could like, get a proper job!