JREF Forum monitored by the press

[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 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.

 

[Hallo 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!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7332625&postcount=38

The talk:

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



The post 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)

 

[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.