I am an Apollo/spaceflight "nutter". Basically if I see a DVD or VHS even of certain unusual mission footage (eg Spacecraft...the whole TV downlinks) than I'll buy it over some other contemporary film I actually went to the store to buy in the first place.

Here in Germany I work in the Transmission Suites for several mainstream channels, which have already TX'd the Hoax program created by Fox. I know to all of you who are with me, that such programs are the same as watching the opening of Davy Jones' Locker, and the Egyptian Pyramid/UFO link type programs. However as one who is "in" on programming, I can tell you the sad truth is that such programs smash ratings. In the end TV execs dont care if what they show is falsh, unenlightened, or just plain dumb, they just want revenue.

That is why such programs still air, despite debunking 100 times over. I may not be Jay Utah when it comes to spaceflight specs, but I am defintely Jay & beyond when it comes to TV.

My theory, and its pretty sound, is that when such stations as the ones I work for air such programs, the best repsonse we can give is simply stating in a letter or email, that we changed the channel and watched Discovery channel or even QVC (in Germany that's the shopping channel). While ratings do matter, so do letters from viewers. Execs know as well as the next person, that 1 complaint represents 19 other hidden tempers.

OK the ratings may still be strong, but a suggestion that such airings turn viewers away is a pretty damning condemnation of some plucky programmer's idea of what we, the public want. Trust me they _do_ listen, especially when enough "I turned away" mails are received.

One important thing is to make clear you _tuned out_. You didnt get upset, you didnt watch further to see if it was balanced, you simply changed channel. In the TV world that hurts more than anything because that mean less dollars/euros/zlotys or whatever. Trust me, I have seen such results first hand.

Hope that helps. I know there are some of you who would rather argue with the station as they aired rubbish, but they will not listen. A loss in viewer audience is something they take very (and sometimes way too) seriously.

Thanks,

Dwight

Couldn't agree more. On a nostalgia programme some years ago here in the UK, the subject of the controversial comedy 'The Young Ones' came up. One of the actors recalled the BBC getting complaints that said:

'I have never seen such crude, unimaginitive, offensive, unwatchable rubbish as the last three episodes of your 'comedy' called The Young Ones. Each week I tune in hoping for an improvement that never seems to come.'

As the actor points out, these people may have found it offensive and described it as unwatchable, but they still watched it every week.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

That's good to know. The Fox Entertainment division can certainly be no stranger to indignance, since it relies heavily on sensationalism and ribald comedy. Far better to tell them they lost your viewership as a result of their programming.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I think that Howard Stern movie had a scene where one TV exec noted that fans listened to Howard's show for at least an hour to find out what he'd say next - and people who hated Howard would listen for two hours for the same reason.

Ah yes, this is all too familiar.

Back in November, The History Channel went on a woo-woo broadcast rampage, airing woefully-less-than-skeptical programs which chronicled Roswell, Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, alien abductions, the alleged conspiracy behind Kennedy assassination, etc, ad nauseum. At first I was merely repulsed, but then it dawned on me... "this is The History Channel"... which usually airs quite good documentary programming rather well-rooted in fact. I began to shudder, imagining that THC was, by broadcasting this garbage, providing an intense barrage of validation for believers, imagining countless thousands of viewers at home proclaiming "WOW, the Roswell Incident was on the HISTORY CHANNEL!! It must be true!" #-o

Since THC prefers you post your comments on their archaic message board (and do not provide direct e-mail addresses), I composed a very diplomatic, detailed post, and in a nutshell asked them why a network of their caliber would bother pandering to paranormal believers and conspiracy theorists. My piece was deleted from their boards in less than a day. At that point, I wrote their parent company directly, enclosing the same bit I'd posted on the THC forum, and never received a reply.

Skepticism is definitely a hard sell.

I think that's the secret behind Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura -- two shows that have historically generated adverse response. People tune in just to see what outrageous thing the host will say. But they tune in.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

And that is why I have never seen Survivor, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, or or any other of the so-called reality programs. The idea of tuning in just to let myself get outraged over the ridiculous stuff on screen doesn't appeal to me. I can't get over listening to co-workers spend 20 minutes complaining about how "stupid" the programs they spent hours watching the night before are.

Be lucky it was only 20 minutes. I once had to listen to a gaggle of quality control inspectors on one of my projects drone on for more than four hours about Survivor instead of completing inspections, apparently unaware that I was temporarily ensconced in a nearby cube writing reports to the vice president on why the project was so far behind schedule. That day turned out to be their last on the job, unfortunately.

I see no problem in mixing education and entertainment. But media companies such as Discovery Networks, who have proven the viability of markets for historical and technical documentaries, shouldn't have to stoop to sensationalism. It's okay to cover controversial topics like UFOs and the Kennedy Assassination, but there's not need to give undue attention to people whose findings simply don't pass muster. It might make for good ratings, but we're talking about people who are already excited about grainy black-and-white images of a Messerschmitt going down in flames.

Is there something wrong with showing people, for example, how to critically analyze photographs of ghosts or UFOs?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

That's why I've been ardently cheering on programs like Penn & Teller's BS and Mythbusters, hoping that the networks might follow suit with programming that emphasizes critical thought.

IMHO, it's beyond reproach for a network that's aired such quality goods as Failure is Not an Option to bombard us with pure pseudoscience. Whenever I see another tired, factually-lacking rehash of Roswell, Kecksburg, Rendlesham, etc, set to spooky music and narrated by a former Star Trek or Star Wars cast member, I can't help but consider it a slap in the face to the scientists, engineers, and astronauts who've helped get us where we are.

Phil said it best: "The Universe is an incredible place, fantastic enough that we don't have to make up nonsense about it."

As has been touched on in another thread, I don't think P&T's emphasis is on critical thought, although they do make some use of it. Their emphasis appears to be on name-calling and other ad hominem arguments, unscientific surveys and experiments (though they do usually admit this), and sensationalism. I have only seem Mythbusters a couple of times, but I was impressed with what I saw. I'll have to start recording that with my TiVo, come to think of it. I have also seen a one-time special on TLC that quite effectively debunked a lot of paranormal scams. Fox might go with a P&T-type show (though they'd have to clean up the language), but I doubt any of the networks would be interested in a serious debunking show. I do feel that Fox might go for a one-shot debunking of their moon-hoax drivel, the way that they did with Alien Autopsy, because they would expect that most people who watched the program would tune in to watch the de-bunking.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I enjoy Mythbusters because they forsake the hundred expert opinions and go right for the one or two data points that are within their power to obtain. Not that empiricism is always the way to go, but it often is the best and quickest way to answer questions like those Mythbusters tackles.

I have mixed feelings about Penn and Teller. I think they encourage critical thinking by exposing, in a forceful and entertaining way, some of the blatant flaws in common lines of thought. But whether they are good exemplars of critical thinking is up to debate. They are caustic and belligerent, which isn't objectively a good approach. But there is a certain perverse pleasure in watching poor thinkers portrayed as pompous buffoons.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base