JREF Forum monitored by the press

[lionking]

This deserves greater coverage that the "Say What's on Your Mind Right Now" thread and the Oliver Stone thread.

The Guardian ran an article (reprinted in Melbourne's Age, and no doubt other papers) about "Oliver Stone's Secret History of America" forthcoming TV series, which controversially puts Hitler and Stalin "in context".

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/film/just-dont-mention-the-hword/2010/01/15/1263058360150.html

It quotes our own Orphia Nay and another member:


A blogger by the pen name Orphia Nay summed up the emotion: ''Ohhhhhh, this is not going to end well,'' she wrote.

Others were less temperate. ''Again, another 'blame America first' person. If he/they hate it, just leave it. We'll all have a party and help you pack. You won't even have a full-body scan.''


The thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164440

A Google search on the topic of Stone's TV series does not show up the forum for pages and pages, so this journo most likely reads this forum.

Well done Orphia and co.

[Brainster]

Congrats to Orphia, one of my favorite posters here!

[godofpie]

This needed its own thread. Good idea LK.

[Doctor Evil]

Well done Orphia.


So "the press" reads this place. Interesting, and tempting. I have a lot of things I may want to say to the press. (Yes, I know its wrong to represent "the press' as a monolithic body. Interestingly, that is one of the things that "the press" does all the time.) On second thought, the likely result would be a suicide by mod, so I better not.

[Travis]

I'd just like to say....The Guardian has always been my favorite.....er.......whatever it is these days. :D

[UNLoVedRebel]

Why wasn't The Guardian interested in the size of Wilt Chamberlain's penis?

[lionking]

Why wasn't The Guardian interested in the size of Wilt Chamberlain's penis?
Now that the press is on to the forum, it's only a matter of time.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Congrats to Orphia, one of my favorite posters here!

Also congrats to Sword_of_Truth for starting the thread that caught the attention of the journalist.

[shandyjan]

As the trend has been to publish snippets of scientific studies as facts, (cures and the like) and UFO's, psychics et al as true, more than ever the last few years, wouldn't it be a fantastic trend if we got more sceptical reporters seeing what the opposition was reporting and checking out the sceptical sites and promoting that view. What a trend that would be! Then it would follow that tv would do it. The psychics would find it hard to get a series.
I better shut up, getting carried, walking on a dream there...

[Hokulele]

Wait, so the 9/11 CTists were right and we are all shills for the "mainstream media"?

:tinfoil

[Orphia Nay]

Thanks for starting this thread, Lionking. I thought it was very interesting that such a well-known news outlet sourced quotes from the forum. Or rather "a" quote... I don't think the second quote came from here.

Thanks for the congrats, peeps! :blush:

Actually, The Age's version isn't quite the full version. The original (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jan/10/hitler-stalin-oliver-stone-history) bit in question was this:

A blogger by the pen name Orphia Nay summed up the billowing emotion: "Ohhhhhh, this is not going to end well," she wrote.

:o

I knew The Age was my favourite paper for a reason. :D


Also congrats to Sword_of_Truth for starting the thread that caught the attention of the journalist.

Seconded. He started that thread almost as soon as the show was announced.

Wait, so the 9/11 CTists were right and we are all shills for the "mainstream media"?

:tinfoil

Of course! So, you've finally woken up?! ;)

[Roma]

Well that explains why a reporter posted a private message to me a couple of weeks ago,
I thought he was another member of the JREF Forum.
Doesn't matter, I didn't mind at all.

[Orphia Nay]

Well that explains why a reporter posted a private message to me a couple of weeks ago,
I thought he was another member of the JREF Forum.
Doesn't matter, I didn't mind at all.

Was his name Ed Pilkington (the author of this article)?

[Mojo]

So "the press" reads this place.


Another example from a few years back: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1171536#post1171536

[arthwollipot]

The forum has been mentioned a number of times on the air. Well, in podcasts. Okay, in my podcast.

[commandlinegamer]

If I were childish I'd say ---- ---, Daily Mail. But I can't imagine them browsing here; they wouldn't want to cloud any of their publication with rational thought.

[zooterkin]

Ah, I saw that. I know Orphia Nay has a blog, as well as posting here, and I assumed that's where the comment was made, since the Grauniad referred to her as a blogger.

ETA: Since the comment was made in a public forum, do we know for certain that the journalist is a member, or did he merely do a bit of googling? If the latter, that might explain his confusion about where the comment was posted.

Congrats to Orphia Nay, though, for the mention.

[FenerFan]

Well done and congrats to the cited posters! :clap:


I'm just wondering when the Uranus thread will get some press.

[ServiceSoon]

Gone are the days when we can call the media idiots. It has become apparent that "we" are the media.

Congratulations to all parties involved.

[lionking]

ETA: Since the comment was made in a public forum, do we know for certain that the journalist is a member, or did he merely do a bit of googling? If the latter, that might explain his confusion about where the comment was posted.

Congrats to Orphia Nay, though, for the mention.

In the OP I mentioned that the forum did not come up in many pages (I don't know how many, I gave up) when googling the topic, so the journalist may well be a member.

[tyr_13]

In the OP I mentioned that the forum did not come up in many pages (I don't know how many, I gave up) when googling the topic, so the journalist may well be a member.

Why not? If I were a journalist who wanted to be well informed about a subject I'd just start a thread here on it and follow the discussion. There is almost always pleanty of sources given to site, and there are a great many smart people here.

When there are people ready to do the research for you? For free? Goldmine.

[sadhatter]

Well that tears it, big brother has us bugged. Get the tinfoil hats, amunition and....oh wait, i mean get on the internet and talk about it, and maybe yell about it in the middle of the street that will stop them.

[Roma]

It was this guy:

http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/DouglasMesner

[Travis]

Did my blatant butt kissing get me quoted yet?




No! Damn.

[amb]

Did my blatant butt kissing get me quoted yet?




No! Damn.

You have to kiss the right butt to get noticed, not just any butt. :p

[A.A. Alfie]

You have to kiss the right butt to get noticed, not just any butt. :p

I always thought it was a game of numbers. The more butt you kiss, the better the chances. :)

[amb]

Also the better chances of ending up with a brown nose. :p

[A.A. Alfie]

And bad breath

[Travis]

You have to kiss the right butt to get noticed, not just any butt. :p

A great idea. A magnificent idea. I dare say one of the best ideas ever conceived by any member of the human species as a solution for any problem real or imagined. All other ever vaguely anthropomorphic beings are shamed by your mere existence.



2 down....40,000+ to go!

[amb]

You have 40.000 butts to kiss? You better have the lip balm ready. You will need it. :)

[Soapy Sam]

Here's the first line from the OP.
This deserves greater coverage that the "Say What's on Your Mind Right Now" thread and the Oliver Stone thread.
Guess what you get if you paste it into Google?


I suspect the press use Google like everyone else.

[lionking]

Paste what? It didn't get any hits to the forum when I originally did it.

[Orphia Nay]

Paste what? It didn't get any hits to the forum when I originally did it.

Nor when I did it.

Although, perhaps Sword of Truth's thread could have turned up fairly early in a Google search back when Ed Pilkington was researching the topic. :con2:

[Soapy Sam]

Googlehttp://www.google.com/images/nav_logo7.png (http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en)

Advanced Search (http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=googleThis+deserves+greater+cove rage+that+the+%22Say+What%27s+on+Your+Mind+Right+N ow%22+thread+and+the+Oliver+Stone+thread.&hl=en)
WebHide optionsShow options... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=googleThis+deserves+greater+coverage+that+the+%2 2Say+What%27s+on+Your+Mind+Right+Now%22+thread+and +the+Oliver+Stone+thread.&tbo=1)
Results 1 - 1 of 1 for googleThis deserves greater coverage that the "Say What's on Your Mind Right Now" thread and the Oliver Stone thread.. (0.34 seconds)

Did you mean: google This deserves greater coverage that the "Say What's on Your Mind Right Now" thread and the Oliver Stone thread. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=t2xUS4_0M6WqjAfc04mhCg&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAYQBSgA&q=google+This+deserves+greater+coverage+that+the+% 22Say+What%27s+on+Your+Mind+Right+Now%22+thread+an d+the+Oliver+Stone+thread.&spell=1)

Search Results

JREF Forum monitored by the press - JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164943&goto=newpost)http://forums.randi.org/sacore:green.gif (http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/randi.org?premium=false&client_uid=2503206109&client_ver=3.0.1.163&client_type=IEPlugin&suite=true&aff_id=105&locale=en_us&os_ver=6.1.0.0&ref=safesearch)

14 posts - 11 authors
This deserves greater coverage that the "Say What's on Your Mind Right Now" thread and the Oliver Stone thread. The Guardian ran an article (reprinted in ...
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s...t=164943&goto... - Cached (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:0Fm8aypeJ6MJ:forums.randi.org/showthread.php%3Fs%3Da9b36943773aa3e186a00d5333322 ab9%26t%3D164943%26goto%3Dnewpost+googleThis+deser ves+greater+coverage+that+the+%22Say+What%27s+on+Y our+Mind+Right+Now%22+thread+and+the+Oliver+Stone+ thread.&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk)

[Hellbound]

Gone are the days when we can call the media idiots. It has become apparent that "we" are the media.

Seems to me that's a False Dichotomy Fallacy...

:)

[Fnord]

Dear Press,

Sylvia Browne is a fraud. I did not father any of Britney Spears' children. American Idol should be canceled. 'Tapatio' is better than 'Tabasco.' 'Lost' should never have left the dumpster. President Obama is neither the Christ nor the Anti-Christ. Enya is the foremost composer of our time. Google stores and cross-references data on every user. None of the children whelped by 'Octomom' are mine, either. Irish beer is the best beer. Grand Ledge hates veterans and loves alcoholics. Both unionism and corporate greed are responsible for the failures of the American automobile, steel and textile industries. I am not keeping Michael Jackson's body in a vat of liquid nitrogen in my basement.

That's all for now.

-Fnord-

[NoZed Avenger]

I, for one, welcome our ink-stained wretch overlords.

[Fnord]

... It has become apparent that "we" are the media...
.
We have met the Media, and it is us.

[bpesta22]

I wanted to issue a PR on a paper I wrote, but my school was too afraids and so was another prominent atheist organization. Would the JREF do it?

[zooterkin]

In the OP I mentioned that the forum did not come up in many pages (I don't know how many, I gave up) when googling the topic, so the journalist may well be a member.

First, I should have said 'using a search engine', but it was quicker to type 'googling'. Different search engines give different results.

Secondly, as Soapy Sam points out, it depends on what search terms you use where the post comes in the results; and, as orphia nay said, that also depends on when you do the search.

The facts that the post is visible to search engines, and that the journalist used the term 'blogger', suggest to me that it is more likely a search engine was used rather than that the journalist is a member.

[lionking]

First, I should have said 'using a search engine', but it was quicker to type 'googling'. Different search engines give different results.

Secondly, as Soapy Sam points out, it depends on what search terms you use where the post comes in the results; and, as orphia nay said, that also depends on when you do the search.

The facts that the post is visible to search engines, and that the journalist used the term 'blogger', suggest to me that it is more likely a search engine was used rather than that the journalist is a member.
Thanks. I saw Soapy's post, but the journalist could not possibly have made the search Soapy specified as the article was written before this thread (obviously). Or am I missing something?

[Roma]

I wanted to issue a PR on a paper I wrote, but my school was too afraid and so was another prominent atheist organization. Would the JREF do it?

That's a perfectly good question and brings up another question:

As part of applying for the JREF Million Dollar Prize an applicant has to show that he has recieved some media coverage, such as press coverage.
(correct me if I'm wrong).

So can someone applying for the JREF Million Dollar Prize just post their press release here on the JREF Forum and have that also count as press coverage ?
Talk about killing two birds with one stone. (don't do that)

[zooterkin]

Thanks. I saw Soapy's post, but the journalist could not possibly have made the search Soapy specified as the article was written before this thread (obviously). Or am I missing something?


Well, first of all, I missed something, I thought Soapy Sam's example was a search for the original thread, not this, so I confess I didn't follow his point.

Nevertheless, if you search for "Oliver Stone Behind the Camera with a Jug Full of Kool-Aid Again", you find the original thread. Granted, the journalist probably didn't do that search, but it demonstrates the principle that the thread can be found if you use the right search terms.

[bpesta22]

Here's my press release that was too controversial for my school. I am releasing it here to all readers of this thread!!

[Soapy Sam]

Thanks. I saw Soapy's post, but the journalist could not possibly have made the search Soapy specified as the article was written before this thread (obviously). Or am I missing something?

I just used the line from the OP as a generic example. My point is that if a journo is looking for info on -say Sylvia Browne, there's a fair chance one of many threads on that subject on this board may appear when he googles it.
Quite often I see a reference to something I never heard of in a thread. When I google it, I'm referred back to the thread. Blasted annoying!

[bpesta22]

I agree SS. Lots of my google searches turn up the jref. As an educational forum, it has potential to link researchers / current science to skeptics.

[zooterkin]

I just used the line from the OP as a generic example. My point is that if a journo is looking for info on -say Sylvia Browne, there's a fair chance one of many threads on that subject on this board may appear when he googles it.
Quite often I see a reference to something I never heard of in a thread. When I google it, I'm referred back to the thread. Blasted annoying!

Ok, that's the point I thought you were making when I first (mis)read your post :)

[Darth Rotor]

Well done Orphia.


So "the press" reads this place. Interesting, and tempting.
Try the following adjective: Pathetic.

[Orphia Nay]

The facts that the post is visible to search engines, and that the journalist used the term 'blogger', suggest to me that it is more likely a search engine was used rather than that the journalist is a member.

Not sure I follow your second point (although I agree there's evidence a search engine was used). My JREF Forum signature contains a link to one of my blog posts.

[Orphia Nay]

Try the following adjective: Pathetic.

How so? (I'm not contradicting you - I'd just like to hear you explain your position because you usually make a good point.)

[Roma]

Here's my press release that was too controversial for my school. I am releasing it here to all readers of this thread!!

I read your press release,

why was it too controversial for your school ?

[zooterkin]

Not sure I follow your second point (although I agree there's evidence a search engine was used). My JREF Forum signature contains a link to one of my blog posts.

What I'm trying to say is that if he had been a member, and found the post as a result, he would have been more likely to refer to you as a forum poster rather than a blogger. I realise that you are both, but it seems odd to refer to you as a blogger in this instance since that wasn't what you were doing at the time. Of course, he might have made both references, and they might have been conflated by an editor who judged that readers were more likely to know what blogging was.

[Darth Rotor]

How so? (I'm not contradicting you - I'd just like to hear you explain your position because you usually make a good point.)

It is cool that you are quotable. Vote one thumbs up for orphia nay's voice being heard among the chaotic noise that is The Net. :)

What I find pathetic is that informal blogging and rumor, which the internet presents in profusion, are considered "sources" by this journalist. That is part of what's wrong in contemporary journalism, and what has been condemned by journalists for years: the use of anonymous and unsubstantiated input as though it were a source. Spreading gossip and rumor was rarely considered good journalism.

"Someone said on the internet" is about as sound a reporting reference as simply repeating a rumor, regardless of how eloquent your point was, nor how well stated.

Even so, such a relativist approach to Hitler as a product of his time as much as an individual embodiment of evil is likely to prove hot material. Stone said he would similarly put Stalin ''in context''. ''I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes, to understand their point of view. You cannot approach history unless you have empathy for the person you may hate.''

Within hours of the comments being made, they had begun, in the predictable pattern of such things, to effervesce on the internet.
And therefore, no news here.

A blogger by the pen name Orphia Nay summed up the emotion: ''Ohhhhhh, this is not going to end well,'' she wrote.

Others were less temperate. ''Again, another 'blame America first' person. If he/they hate it, just leave it. We'll all have a party and help you pack. You won't even have a full-body scan.''
While I suppose the JREF forums may be the stuff the reporter reads, I do not see how responding to Stone's position is newsworthy.

Maybe this reporter has covered Conspiracy theories before, and found Gravy and the Gang at JREF Forum to have done a service to anti conspiracy theory practice in general.

So, why did this journalist quote one of tens of thousands of net reactions to Stone and his little project?

I bet that he either knows you, is a member here, or has become familiar with JREF CT forum through the 9-11 CT windstorm.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Oops, meant to edit, not quote.

[bpesta22]

I read your press release,

why was it too controversial for your school ?

Someone had problems reading it-- it was a docx file uploaded as a doc file, sorry.

My guess is IQ research in general is very controversial. And, I think the PR guy at my school (who was gung ho about doing it til he actually read it) must have been offended, perhaps religious; I dunno. That's just speculation but I could see a "fundamentalist" xtian being highly offended by the pr.

Thanks for reading it!

B

[Orphia Nay]

It is cool that you are quotable. Vote one thumbs up for orphia nay's voice being heard among the chaotic noise that is The Net. :)

What I find pathetic is that informal blogging and rumor, which the internet presents in profusion, are considered "sources" by this journalist. That is part of what's wrong in contemporary journalism, and what has been condemned by journalists for years: the use of anonymous and unsubstantiated input as though it were a source. Spreading gossip and rumor was rarely considered good journalism.

"Someone said on the internet" is about as sound a reporting reference as simply repeating a rumor, regardless of how eloquent your point was, nor how well stated.


And therefore, no news here.


While I suppose the JREF forums may be the stuff the reporter reads, I do not see how responding to Stone's position is newsworthy.

Maybe this reporter has covered Conspiracy theories before, and found Gravy and the Gang at JREF Forum to have done a service to anti conspiracy theory practice in general.

So, why did this journalist quote one of tens of thousands of net reactions to Stone and his little project?

I bet that he either knows you, is a member here, or has become familiar with JREF CT forum through the 9-11 CT windstorm.

DR

Good points.

Although, I don't think there would have been 'tens of thousands of net reactions' at the time the Guardian article was being researched.

Sword of Truth's thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164440) and my comment were made less than 24 hours after the original story was released here: http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/oliver-stone-history-america.html

Sure, quoting people from the internet seems like lazy journalism, but what's the alternative? People who've already commented are showing that they have an opinion on the subject, unlike random passers-by on the street who might not.

Just a couple of thoughts. Thanks for the reply, DR.

[A.A. Alfie]

I agree with ON on that one too.

Journalists (good and bad) have always sought an opinions both from the experts as well as from the 'street' in the hope of getting a good "lay summary".

[Orphia Nay]

One of Blobru's posts has been cited in a TED talk! :cheerleader2

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7332625&postcount=38

The talk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGF9NbPFfRo

RGF9NbPFfRo

The post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5767252#post5767252) is shown at 8:22 - 8:28 in the video.

Yay, blobru, and yay, JREF Forum! :)

[MontagK505]

I always thought it was a game of numbers. The more butt you kiss, the better the chances. :)

Is that like kissing frogs at random hoping that one of them will turn out to be a prince / princess? (depending on frog gender):D

[biomorph]

If I were childish I'd say ---- ---, Daily Mail. But I can't imagine them browsing here; they wouldn't want to cloud any of their publication with rational thought.

Or with any thought, as it goes.:D

[zooterkin]

One of Blobru's posts has been cited in a TED talk! :cheerleader2

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7332625&postcount=38

The talk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGF9NbPFfRo

RGF9NbPFfRo

The post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5767252#post5767252) is shown at 8:22 - 8:28 in the video.

Yay, blobru, and yay, JREF Forum! :)


Although it should be pointed out that the person doing the quoting is another forum member, our own dear Bubblefish.

[amb]

You know what they say. Any publicity is good publicity. :D

[Orphia Nay]

Although it should be pointed out that the person doing the quoting is another forum member, our own dear Bubblefish.

No, unless Bubblefish is Rome Viharo or Maf Lewis.

The quote from blobru is shown on the screen above the stage during the TED talk by those speakers.

[zooterkin]

No, unless Bubblefish is Rome Viharo or Maf Lewis.


He is (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2335580#post2335580). ;)

[Orphia Nay]

He is. ;)

Oops. :o