The Main Problem w/ Paranormal Topics

[Wintermute]

So I had a long discussion on a podcast last week about Bell, C2C and all the other "paranormal" subjects in the new media today. Basically my point was that at the end of the day, when you interview some of these guys / gals into UFOs, ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, ancient mystic stuff... ect... you are essentially herding cats. The majority of time you are interviewing people that either have such low morality that they are trying to make money off of lies, or they are crazy and have duped themselves into believing their own ideas.

To compound this problem, we see this gray / muddy thinking in so many outlets now that it's become a parody of itself. So as an interviewer you have to question what you are doing and whether it is even ethical to continue to assist these nutty people in getting their word out. The programming itself is so common place that it's no longer even that popular. So I am not sure it is ethical or good business sense to be in the paranormal new media space today.

The good news is that the most interesting subjects are the legit, scientific topics. AND there are not that many entertaining shows in new media catering to long-term scientific research topics. Just as an example, the trans-humanism or H+ topic is something that was fringe 10 years ago, which today billions of dollars are spent in research. The consequences of the multiple pieces of technology the NSA has developed since 2008 is another example that has only been touched by few new media outlets. These are legit topics that should be discussed rather than UFOs, Bigfoot, and crystal skulls.

The bottom line: If Art Bell comes back, he needs to make a concerted effort to not pad his schedule with the Giovanni Lordi's, Stephen Bassett's, Stanton Freidman's, Ricardo González's, and Heather Arielle's of the world. Instead, hit the **real** topics of today and tomorrow with real scientific researchers.

[DinamoDennis]

Shut up!

[NowhereInTime]

So I had a long discussion on a podcast last week about Bell, C2C and all the other "paranormal" subjects in the new media today. Basically my point was that at the end of the day, when you interview some of these guys / gals into UFOs, ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, ancient mystic stuff... ect... you are essentially herding cats. The majority of time you are interviewing people that either have such low morality that they are trying to make money off of lies, or they are crazy and have duped themselves into believing their own ideas.

To compound this problem, we see this gray / muddy thinking in so many outlets now that it's become a parody of itself. So as an interviewer you have to question what you are doing and whether it is even ethical to continue to assist these nutty people in getting their word out. The programming itself is so common place that it's no longer even that popular. So I am not sure it is ethical or good business sense to be in the paranormal new media space today.

The good news is that the most interesting subjects are the legit, scientific topics. AND there are not that many entertaining shows in new media catering to long-term scientific research topics. Just as an example, the trans-humanism or H+ topic is something that was fringe 10 years ago, which today billions of dollars are spent in research. The consequences of the multiple pieces of technology the NSA has developed since 2008 is another example that has only been touched by few new media outlets. These are legit topics that should be discussed rather than UFOs, Bigfoot, and crystal skulls.

The bottom line: If Art Bell comes back, he needs to make a concerted effort to not pad his schedule with the Giovanni Lordi's, Stephen Bassett's, Stanton Freidman's, Ricardo González's, and Heather Arielle's of the world. Instead, hit the **real** topics of today and tomorrow with real scientific researchers.

True, but there needs to be an emphasis on updating research on the paranormal.  I would like to see and hear new guests offering new insights (and even some solid, healthy debunking!) that would expand our understanding of the potentiality of paranormal investigation.

[cweb]

True, but there needs to be an emphasis on updating research on the paranormal.  I would like to see and hear new guests offering new insights (and even some solid, healthy debunking!) that would expand our understanding of the potentiality of paranormal investigation.

Agreed. It sucks when a guest you enjoyed their last time on a show comes on and tells the same story again.

But Noory probably doesn't mind in his case. He can reuse the 3x5 cards. *recycling!*

[West of the Rockies]

Great points, Wintermute and NiT...  Charlatans and nut jobs are plentiful; original and intelligent and honest presenters of paranormal material are rare.  And yet there IS a thirst, hence the popularity of Fringe, Warehouse 13, etc.  Noory keeps rolling out the same cast of knuckleheads that now mostly attract easily duped listeners:  low-information shut-ins and such. 

I wish I had an answer.  Maybe if there were a quality host like Bell, the ratings would be there.  If you build it, they will come.

[Wintermute]

There is a little bit of a problem comparing TV shows and cinema to talk radio content. The biggest issue: These radio shows are marketing themselves as "real" shows. The second biggest issue is that some of the guests are passing themselves off as real, AND are attempting to make money off of duping people... this pains me the most.

Falling Skies, The Last Ship, The Strain, X-Files, The Walking Dead, Millennium, Continuum... all TV shows... none are passed off as real. That is not to say that TV and cinema are scott-free. The Fourth Kind is an example of a movie and marketing campaign that used some real events + "found-footage" cinema style to more or less trick audiences into thinking it was some sort of reality documentary. Fun movie, but underhanded and manipulative IMO. Same with Ghost Hunters, Ancient Aliens... ect... don't even get me started about History Channel airing that type of stuff! I expect it from Syfy... haha.

I consider myself an open-minded, very skeptical person. I felt that C2C was pretty harmless entertainment throughout my time as a listener. Some times they have hosted legit people which are usually very entertaining. Over the last decade with more podcasts and TV shows, and even going to a couple of these "conferences", I have found that these same people are money-seeking charlatans. There is an insulated community with an ecosystem and economy of these people. It's not a cult... it's more like a subscription-based fandom group.

My $1 worth of feedback for all paranormal radio type shows. And yes, I 100% agree... these types of people repeat and regurgitate that same gray logic for years on every show. It is so old and so over-cooked that it's not even funny to listen. It's just sad.

[West of the Rockies]

Well, yes, there is a difference, of course, between fiction TV and the sort of Ghost Hunters crap you're addressing.  How anyone can regard those big under-educated knuckleheads with respect astonishes me.  And as for Ancient Aliens, oh, it's the guy with the orange-glo tan and crazy hair again!  He's totally legit!

Those programs appeal to the low-information audience that is into paranormal subject matter (as does C2C now).  Those of us with a respect for science and critical thinking skills are left high and dry.  I maintain, however, that there could be a show for us.  It would continue to examine the paranormal AND science/tech.  It could be done.

[PB the Deplorable]

There's always the Weather Channel

[Chine]

I thought I would share this. I interviewed Loyd Auerbach last year. Some of you may remember, he was a guest of Art's last year on DM.  Touching on some of what is being discussed here.

http://www.sarasotaday.com/blog_view.cfm?BLOGID=868

[cweb]

Same with Ghost Hunters, Ancient Aliens... ect... don't even get me started about History Channel airing that type of stuff! I expect it from Syfy... haha.

I remember 20 or so years ago when my grandfather would be watching the occasional "doc" on aliens/ghosts/paranormal on the "educational" channels. One thing I remember was a more careful approach toward the topics. The shows didn't always try to sell the case that "this is 100% real."

Then comes shows like Ghost Hunters. Sure, it's an entertaining show. Who doesn't like running around creepy places in the dark with friends, just for kicks? But they shouldn't pass it off as "science." Because all they have are theories, guesses, and anecdotes.

Nobody is asking the followup questions anymore. They're just accepting what is being spoon-fed as the absolute truth. When channels formerly known for informative programs resort to heavily-edited entertainment programs, some viewers may not have the ability to discern a fun story from real science.

Noory's Coast has gone from a show that has fun with weirdness (or the possibility of it) to a snake-oil sales pitch.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

I remember 20 or so years ago when my grandfather would be watching the occasional "doc" on aliens/ghosts/paranormal on the "educational" channels. One thing I remember was a more careful approach toward the topics. The shows didn't always try to sell the case that "this is 100% real."

Then comes shows like Ghost Hunters. Sure, it's an entertaining show. Who doesn't like running around creepy places in the dark with friends, just for kicks? But they shouldn't pass it off as "science." Because all they have are theories, guesses, and anecdotes.

Nobody is asking the followup questions anymore. They're just accepting what is being spoon-fed as the absolute truth. When channels formerly known for informative programs resort to heavily-edited entertainment programs, some viewers may not have the ability to discern a fun story from real science.

Noory's Coast has gone from a show that has fun with weirdness (or the possibility of it) to a snake-oil sales pitch.

Couldn't agree more!  "Ghost Hunters" has everything except proof that ghosts exist. 

[Gd5150]

It's not the subjects that are boring, its the delivery. They never got old when Art was hosting because he made it interesting. He had that EVP couple on dozens of times and it was always entertaining. C2c is boring and uninteresting, because the hosts (besides Knapp) are boring and uninteresting. There is no exchange, no followup, and uses the same questions for each subject.

Paranormal TV is boring because its so incredibly weak and lazy. Reality TV all uses the same format. Preview, content, review, commercial. Repeat. In the end you're left with maybe 10 minutes of material being stretched for an hour. On top of it TV producers are traditional and boring. They have no interest in the subject they're covering, its all about creating a hook to keep you there through commercial. Its so tired. Use Finding Bigfoot, 3 or 4 seasons now, so many what was that moments then after commercial are nothing. They haven't even recorded 1 good audio clip. Zero for 4 seasons.

If people find paranormal boring thats fine, go watch or listen to something else. The subject is still interesting, just need to get the idiots out of it who are in control of producing the programming.

[analog kid]

I remember 20 or so years ago when my grandfather would be watching the occasional "doc" on aliens/ghosts/paranormal on the "educational" channels. One thing I remember was a more careful approach toward the topics. The shows didn't always try to sell the case that "this is 100% real."

Then comes shows like Ghost Hunters. Sure, it's an entertaining show. Who doesn't like running around creepy places in the dark with friends, just for kicks? But they shouldn't pass it off as "science." Because all they have are theories, guesses, and anecdotes.

Nobody is asking the followup questions anymore. They're just accepting what is being spoon-fed as the absolute truth. When channels formerly known for informative programs resort to heavily-edited entertainment programs, some viewers may not have the ability to discern a fun story from real science.

Noory's Coast has gone from a show that has fun with weirdness (or the possibility of it) to a snake-oil sales pitch.

The paranormal has always been rife with beliefs or tropes that make little sense, as far as I know. Cameras can record ghostly forms the human eye can't see. Why? Likewise, tape recorders capture audio the ear can't. Pets can see ghost where humans can't. Children are more sensitive, etc., etc.. I've never seen any of those things properly challenged on TV ever. They're just universally accepted as true, despite no evidence for them.

[West of the Rockies]

I assume most of us recall In Search Of (with Leonard Nimoy)...  What is the difference between that mid-70's offering and the crap on TV today?  Was it more realistic, skeptical, substantive?

I am so sick of Monster Quest type shows:  "Scientists can't say what this man saw."  Well, no, because scientists are not actually pondering what some Monster Quest yokel of the week saw. 

I don't recall ISO being burdened with do many knuckleheads.

Again, there is an intelligent audience thirsting for quality speculative paranormal material.

[Tarbaby]

There's always the Weather Channel

please elaborate. I don't get it.

[onan]

please elaborate. I don't get it.

I think you need cable to get it.

[jazmunda]

I agree that Art needs to go down a more scientific route. Having said that there is something about Art and the way he broadcasts that makes some of the pseudo scientific/paranormal guests/topics palatable.

I also think some of Art's best interviews are his non-scientific/paranormal ones.

[onan]

It is all in the presentation. My Bob Costas anecdote has worn pretty thing, but I can listen to him for hours explaining sports, and I hate sports.

[Wintermute]

That's a good point not only for radio / podcast, but also for life in general. It isn't usually about what you say... it is about how you say it. Approach to any topic is pretty important. I'm not a baseball fan so I rarely listen to Costas.