?
-
Guest
http://www.rense.com/general75/memd.htm
The Wheat From The Chaff In The Alternative Media
By Michael Goodspeed
Thunderbolts.info
2-5-7
If you are reading this on one of the websites to which I submit my
writing, then you are probably well-acquainted with the general
subjects and personalities that permeate alternative news services.
And if you have at least some intelligence, discernment, and a desire
to know the truth, then you have surely developed some sense of whom
among this crowd is worthy of your trust and interest...and who is
clearly not.
I don't think it is difficult to identify the untrustworthy and non-
credible "alternative" websites and radio shows. One need only look
for a couple of glaring "red flags" that give these folks away:
1) Does the website and/or radio show consistently feature provably
false information, and/or guests who are undeniable charlatans and
liars? We're not talking here about someone making an editorial
mistake and unintentionally presenting bad information, or providing a
forum to someone who turns out to be less than credible. We're talking
about the websites and/or radio shows that have over many years
consistently presented guests and/or information KNOWN to be
non-credible and/or outright dishonest. And little or no attempt is
made to illuminate the audience on the false or bad information.
2) Do/does the personalities/personality behind the website and/or
radio show spend a large amount of their time attacking other
alternative media outlets, with little or no substantive basis? Do
they make self-aggrandizing claims of being the only one who can
provide the truth, calling everyone and his kid sister a "disinfo
agent" or con artist? This is not to say that all criticism of
"alternative" personalities is unwarranted -- a number of dishonest
figures should be, and have been, exposed for their charlatanry. But
more than a few "alternative" figures consistently attack their
"colleagues" in a highly emotional, immature, and often profane
manner, with little or no basis in fact.
I'm sorry to say that some of the most popular "alternative" websites
and/or radio shows consistently wave at least one or both of the above
"red flags," with no apparent negative effect on their popularity. It
is not a revelation that the most listened to, supposedly
"alternative" radio show in the world, Coast to Coast AM, developed
and maintains its massive fan base largely by presenting guests and
information that have little or no credibility or integrity. One of
the most popular guests in the shows twenty year history has been
self-styled "futurist" Gordon Michael Scallion. For reasons that are
not easy to identify, Scallion developed tremendous notoriety in the
90's for his supposed ability to foretell future events. But as I've
pointed out in more than one previous essay, Scallion's actual ability
to predict the future is abysmal, or non-existent.
In September of 2005, I composed a piece documenting just how poor
Scallion's "hit rate" really is, dating back over ten years. I was
compelled to do this after Scallion appeared on Coast to Coast AM and
apparently tried to take credit for having predicted the terrible
flooding associated with Hurricane Katrina. As I pointed out, this was
incredibly disingenuous, particularly since Scallion predicted in 1994
that before the turn of the century, earthquakes and tsunamis would
ravage the ENTIRE PLANET, Japan would be completely swallowed by the
ocean, and the U.S. would be forced to re-structure itself as 13
COLONIES. And oh, by the way, a few years after Scallion offered the
prediction: "50% of Florida will be inundated," he apparently bought
real estate in the Sunshine State valued at over a quarter of a
million dollars (I received a fax of the property transaction record
with Scallion's name on it). I attempted to get a response from
Scallion through his website on this small "problem," and to date,
none has been received. And I sent the information to the Coast to
Coast people, but they were apparently not bothered by it enough to
cease featuring Scallion as a guest. (This full expose may be read
here: http:// www.ufowatchdog.com/absurdscallion.html)
On February 4th, 2007, Scallion was again featured on Coast to Coast
AM, to promote his new book "Notes from the Cosmos." I didn't listen
to the interview (which was conducted by Art Bell), but according to
the Coast to Coast website, Scallion "conceded that his timeline for
predicted earth changes was off, though he still believes they will
take place--..." (The full recap may be read here:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2007/02/04.html#b)
His TIMELINE is off, eh? I'm sorry to be cynical, folks, but if you
believe that, I have some real estate on the lost continent of
Atlantis to sell you (a portion of which old Gordo' predicted would be
discovered nearly a decade ago).
Given what we know about Scallion -- his astonishingly poor "hit
ratio" dating back over TWO DECADES, and the real estate he apparently
purchased in an area he had forecast as doomed -- it is fair to wonder
what kind of talk show producers and hosts would repeatedly and
deliberately EMPOWER the man to make more money off of his books and
newsletter, while never conveying to the audience just how lacking in
credibility he is.
On "red flag" number one, Coast to Coast has been as guilty as any
popular radio show in the history of broadcasting. And on "red flag"
number two, Art Bell (the show's original full-time host) was guilty
on many occasions, perhaps most notably when he labeled the Jeff Rense
website, Rense.com, "anti-semitic," and referred to 9/11 skeptics and
investigators as "wingnuts." And his unbending devotion to his most
dishonest and least credible guests was (and is) a tad perplexing. For
instance, frequent Coast to Coast guest Sean David Morton (another
self-styled future-teller with a "hit rate" close to zero) filed a
"libel" lawsuit against Royce J. Meyers III (owner of the website
Ufowatchdog.com) after Meyers wrote a series of devastating essays on
Morton's claims about his own background. The suit was thrown out, and
Morton was forced to pay Meyers' legal fees (a reported sum of
$16,000). Bell then provided a soapbox to Morton to discuss the
matter, and offered no invitation to Meyers for a rebuttal. (See Sean
David Morton, Put Up or Shut Up,
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/sdmchallenge.html)
In my opinion, Coast to Coast AM's track record, established by Art
Bell and placidly maintained by George Noory, clearly demonstrates
that the shows producers and hosts have no real interest in conveying
truth to the listening public, nor do they have any apparent
compunctions with presenting information that is bad, fictional,
and/or totally useless. The subjects discussed are (again, in my
opinion) almost totally lightweight, with the occasionally featured
Alex Jones being the closest proximity of a hard-hitting guest (I say
this as a fan of Alex Jones.) A visit to the Coast to Coast website
rewards one with countless pictures of orbs and faces in trees and
weird cloud formations and other "data" that cannot by any means that
I would agree with be described as meaningful or even entertaining.
I'm sorry if my comments offend the show's fans, but if you are angry
with me, I would like to know what justification you can offer for a
media personality EVER presenting information that he KNOWS to be
distorted, useless, or completely false.
This is not a small matter, given the extraordinary reach and
influence the show has on alternative media. As a former co-host of a
popular late night show in a medium/large market (the Ground Zero
show, hosted by Clyde Lewis in Portland, OR) and having worked for
years behind the scenes trying to get smaller, GENUINELY alternative
shows more broadly distributed, I can tell you that most station
programmers offer one of two responses when approached about a program
that is even remotely similar to Coast to Coast in style and content:
1) We already carry Coast to Coast and don't need anything similar; or
2) I've heard Coast to Coast, and don't wish to carry anything like it
on my station.
So on "red flag" number one, Coast to Coast is, in my opinion, the
worst and most damaging offender. If you do not agree with me, that is
fine, but the reasoning behind my opinion is well documented, and, I
think, totally reasonable.
On "red flag" number two, I don't think I need to enumerate any
specific examples -- the guilty parties are not exactly subtle in
their approach. A handful or two of unfortunately VERY popular
alternative personalities have spent an enormous portion of their
public lives calling people names, making baseless accusations, and
pounding their own chests like rabid gorillas. As many others have
pointed out, this has always been very prevalent in the "9/11 truth
movement," with a number of "researchers" continuously accusing their
"colleagues" of being paid government disinformation agents, and/or
con artists. These seemingly troubled individuals sing a one- note
siren song: "PAY NO ATTENTION TO ANYONE BUT ME!" If this style of
"presentation" is appealing to you, I dare say that a visit to a
qualified mental health specialist is in order.
It's one thing to question a person's credibility with solid, factual
evidence. For example, the aforementioned Royce J. Meyers III at UFO
Watchdog has conducted a number of exhaustive investigations into some
of the least credible "alternative" figures, and to my knowledge, no
one to date has successfully demonstrated a SINGLE FACTUAL ERROR in
any of his exposes. In my opinion, Meyers is performing a good and
necessary service to the public. But it is something quite different
to spend most or all of one's time attacking one's "competitors,"
usually with no meaningful supportive evidence that they've done
anything wrong. Author Judy Andreas wrote a particularly relevant
piece on this problem some time back, entitled "Backstabbing and Name
Calling Weaken The Alternative Media,"
http://www.rense.com/general69/bstab.htm
I have followed the alternative media closely for the last 13 years,
contributing as an essayist, occasional radio show guest, and former
radio personality. I've come to feel very comfortable with a number of
alternative news services, and consider them reliable presenters of
much (but not ENTIRELY) good information. These include talk-show host
Jeff Rense's rense.com (to which I have contributed over one hundred
essays over 7 years), Michael Rivero's whatreallyhappened.com, Alex
Jones' prisonplanet.com, Rayelan Allen's rumormillnews.com (which I
have been contributing to as an agent for about three years), Theresa
De Veto's surfingtheapocalypse.com (which provides a forum for members
of the general public to post a wide variety of information), Henrik
Palmgren's redicecreations.com (a visually very appealing site with a
broad variety of stories, and an internet talk show), and
UFOwatchdog.com (perhaps the best database of genuinely skeptical and
balanced writings on the UFO subject anywhere on the internet.) Of
course, there are many other fine alternative news services on the net
that I've omitted -- I've just listed the ones that I habitually visit
out of personal fondness and a sense of trust.
I'm sure that most or all of the above news services has at one time
or another carried a story or presented information that later proved
to be inaccurate. And I find plenty of the material they present silly
or uninteresting. But I've NEVER ONCE seen any of these sites display
either of the "red flags" that would make me uncomfortable. As far as
I know, they have never KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY presented false
information, nor have they have engaged in baseless personal attacks
against their colleagues/competitors.
If you care about the issues with which alternative media are
concerned, you should choose carefully and soberly to whom you give
your time, readership, listenership, and/or money. If you view certain
members of the "alternative" scene as misleaders or abusers (and as I
stated, I believe the guilty parties are easy to identify), do not
provide them tacit assistance. More than anything, they fear
anonymity. Stop giving them attention and they'll be forced to retreat
into darkness and isolation, an appropriate place for one to wrestle
with his own inner demons.
Disclaimer
Email This Article
MainPage
http://www.rense.com
This Site Served by TheHostPros
The Wheat From The Chaff In The Alternative Media
By Michael Goodspeed
Thunderbolts.info
2-5-7
If you are reading this on one of the websites to which I submit my
writing, then you are probably well-acquainted with the general
subjects and personalities that permeate alternative news services.
And if you have at least some intelligence, discernment, and a desire
to know the truth, then you have surely developed some sense of whom
among this crowd is worthy of your trust and interest...and who is
clearly not.
I don't think it is difficult to identify the untrustworthy and non-
credible "alternative" websites and radio shows. One need only look
for a couple of glaring "red flags" that give these folks away:
1) Does the website and/or radio show consistently feature provably
false information, and/or guests who are undeniable charlatans and
liars? We're not talking here about someone making an editorial
mistake and unintentionally presenting bad information, or providing a
forum to someone who turns out to be less than credible. We're talking
about the websites and/or radio shows that have over many years
consistently presented guests and/or information KNOWN to be
non-credible and/or outright dishonest. And little or no attempt is
made to illuminate the audience on the false or bad information.
2) Do/does the personalities/personality behind the website and/or
radio show spend a large amount of their time attacking other
alternative media outlets, with little or no substantive basis? Do
they make self-aggrandizing claims of being the only one who can
provide the truth, calling everyone and his kid sister a "disinfo
agent" or con artist? This is not to say that all criticism of
"alternative" personalities is unwarranted -- a number of dishonest
figures should be, and have been, exposed for their charlatanry. But
more than a few "alternative" figures consistently attack their
"colleagues" in a highly emotional, immature, and often profane
manner, with little or no basis in fact.
I'm sorry to say that some of the most popular "alternative" websites
and/or radio shows consistently wave at least one or both of the above
"red flags," with no apparent negative effect on their popularity. It
is not a revelation that the most listened to, supposedly
"alternative" radio show in the world, Coast to Coast AM, developed
and maintains its massive fan base largely by presenting guests and
information that have little or no credibility or integrity. One of
the most popular guests in the shows twenty year history has been
self-styled "futurist" Gordon Michael Scallion. For reasons that are
not easy to identify, Scallion developed tremendous notoriety in the
90's for his supposed ability to foretell future events. But as I've
pointed out in more than one previous essay, Scallion's actual ability
to predict the future is abysmal, or non-existent.
In September of 2005, I composed a piece documenting just how poor
Scallion's "hit rate" really is, dating back over ten years. I was
compelled to do this after Scallion appeared on Coast to Coast AM and
apparently tried to take credit for having predicted the terrible
flooding associated with Hurricane Katrina. As I pointed out, this was
incredibly disingenuous, particularly since Scallion predicted in 1994
that before the turn of the century, earthquakes and tsunamis would
ravage the ENTIRE PLANET, Japan would be completely swallowed by the
ocean, and the U.S. would be forced to re-structure itself as 13
COLONIES. And oh, by the way, a few years after Scallion offered the
prediction: "50% of Florida will be inundated," he apparently bought
real estate in the Sunshine State valued at over a quarter of a
million dollars (I received a fax of the property transaction record
with Scallion's name on it). I attempted to get a response from
Scallion through his website on this small "problem," and to date,
none has been received. And I sent the information to the Coast to
Coast people, but they were apparently not bothered by it enough to
cease featuring Scallion as a guest. (This full expose may be read
here: http:// www.ufowatchdog.com/absurdscallion.html)
On February 4th, 2007, Scallion was again featured on Coast to Coast
AM, to promote his new book "Notes from the Cosmos." I didn't listen
to the interview (which was conducted by Art Bell), but according to
the Coast to Coast website, Scallion "conceded that his timeline for
predicted earth changes was off, though he still believes they will
take place--..." (The full recap may be read here:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2007/02/04.html#b)
His TIMELINE is off, eh? I'm sorry to be cynical, folks, but if you
believe that, I have some real estate on the lost continent of
Atlantis to sell you (a portion of which old Gordo' predicted would be
discovered nearly a decade ago).
Given what we know about Scallion -- his astonishingly poor "hit
ratio" dating back over TWO DECADES, and the real estate he apparently
purchased in an area he had forecast as doomed -- it is fair to wonder
what kind of talk show producers and hosts would repeatedly and
deliberately EMPOWER the man to make more money off of his books and
newsletter, while never conveying to the audience just how lacking in
credibility he is.
On "red flag" number one, Coast to Coast has been as guilty as any
popular radio show in the history of broadcasting. And on "red flag"
number two, Art Bell (the show's original full-time host) was guilty
on many occasions, perhaps most notably when he labeled the Jeff Rense
website, Rense.com, "anti-semitic," and referred to 9/11 skeptics and
investigators as "wingnuts." And his unbending devotion to his most
dishonest and least credible guests was (and is) a tad perplexing. For
instance, frequent Coast to Coast guest Sean David Morton (another
self-styled future-teller with a "hit rate" close to zero) filed a
"libel" lawsuit against Royce J. Meyers III (owner of the website
Ufowatchdog.com) after Meyers wrote a series of devastating essays on
Morton's claims about his own background. The suit was thrown out, and
Morton was forced to pay Meyers' legal fees (a reported sum of
$16,000). Bell then provided a soapbox to Morton to discuss the
matter, and offered no invitation to Meyers for a rebuttal. (See Sean
David Morton, Put Up or Shut Up,
http://www.ufowatchdog.com/sdmchallenge.html)
In my opinion, Coast to Coast AM's track record, established by Art
Bell and placidly maintained by George Noory, clearly demonstrates
that the shows producers and hosts have no real interest in conveying
truth to the listening public, nor do they have any apparent
compunctions with presenting information that is bad, fictional,
and/or totally useless. The subjects discussed are (again, in my
opinion) almost totally lightweight, with the occasionally featured
Alex Jones being the closest proximity of a hard-hitting guest (I say
this as a fan of Alex Jones.) A visit to the Coast to Coast website
rewards one with countless pictures of orbs and faces in trees and
weird cloud formations and other "data" that cannot by any means that
I would agree with be described as meaningful or even entertaining.
I'm sorry if my comments offend the show's fans, but if you are angry
with me, I would like to know what justification you can offer for a
media personality EVER presenting information that he KNOWS to be
distorted, useless, or completely false.
This is not a small matter, given the extraordinary reach and
influence the show has on alternative media. As a former co-host of a
popular late night show in a medium/large market (the Ground Zero
show, hosted by Clyde Lewis in Portland, OR) and having worked for
years behind the scenes trying to get smaller, GENUINELY alternative
shows more broadly distributed, I can tell you that most station
programmers offer one of two responses when approached about a program
that is even remotely similar to Coast to Coast in style and content:
1) We already carry Coast to Coast and don't need anything similar; or
2) I've heard Coast to Coast, and don't wish to carry anything like it
on my station.
So on "red flag" number one, Coast to Coast is, in my opinion, the
worst and most damaging offender. If you do not agree with me, that is
fine, but the reasoning behind my opinion is well documented, and, I
think, totally reasonable.
On "red flag" number two, I don't think I need to enumerate any
specific examples -- the guilty parties are not exactly subtle in
their approach. A handful or two of unfortunately VERY popular
alternative personalities have spent an enormous portion of their
public lives calling people names, making baseless accusations, and
pounding their own chests like rabid gorillas. As many others have
pointed out, this has always been very prevalent in the "9/11 truth
movement," with a number of "researchers" continuously accusing their
"colleagues" of being paid government disinformation agents, and/or
con artists. These seemingly troubled individuals sing a one- note
siren song: "PAY NO ATTENTION TO ANYONE BUT ME!" If this style of
"presentation" is appealing to you, I dare say that a visit to a
qualified mental health specialist is in order.
It's one thing to question a person's credibility with solid, factual
evidence. For example, the aforementioned Royce J. Meyers III at UFO
Watchdog has conducted a number of exhaustive investigations into some
of the least credible "alternative" figures, and to my knowledge, no
one to date has successfully demonstrated a SINGLE FACTUAL ERROR in
any of his exposes. In my opinion, Meyers is performing a good and
necessary service to the public. But it is something quite different
to spend most or all of one's time attacking one's "competitors,"
usually with no meaningful supportive evidence that they've done
anything wrong. Author Judy Andreas wrote a particularly relevant
piece on this problem some time back, entitled "Backstabbing and Name
Calling Weaken The Alternative Media,"
http://www.rense.com/general69/bstab.htm
I have followed the alternative media closely for the last 13 years,
contributing as an essayist, occasional radio show guest, and former
radio personality. I've come to feel very comfortable with a number of
alternative news services, and consider them reliable presenters of
much (but not ENTIRELY) good information. These include talk-show host
Jeff Rense's rense.com (to which I have contributed over one hundred
essays over 7 years), Michael Rivero's whatreallyhappened.com, Alex
Jones' prisonplanet.com, Rayelan Allen's rumormillnews.com (which I
have been contributing to as an agent for about three years), Theresa
De Veto's surfingtheapocalypse.com (which provides a forum for members
of the general public to post a wide variety of information), Henrik
Palmgren's redicecreations.com (a visually very appealing site with a
broad variety of stories, and an internet talk show), and
UFOwatchdog.com (perhaps the best database of genuinely skeptical and
balanced writings on the UFO subject anywhere on the internet.) Of
course, there are many other fine alternative news services on the net
that I've omitted -- I've just listed the ones that I habitually visit
out of personal fondness and a sense of trust.
I'm sure that most or all of the above news services has at one time
or another carried a story or presented information that later proved
to be inaccurate. And I find plenty of the material they present silly
or uninteresting. But I've NEVER ONCE seen any of these sites display
either of the "red flags" that would make me uncomfortable. As far as
I know, they have never KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY presented false
information, nor have they have engaged in baseless personal attacks
against their colleagues/competitors.
If you care about the issues with which alternative media are
concerned, you should choose carefully and soberly to whom you give
your time, readership, listenership, and/or money. If you view certain
members of the "alternative" scene as misleaders or abusers (and as I
stated, I believe the guilty parties are easy to identify), do not
provide them tacit assistance. More than anything, they fear
anonymity. Stop giving them attention and they'll be forced to retreat
into darkness and isolation, an appropriate place for one to wrestle
with his own inner demons.
Disclaimer
Email This Article
MainPage
http://www.rense.com
This Site Served by TheHostPros