'deprogramming'
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
How about we have a Vote? (Poll) then if it gets voted down no one can complain that the Editor "censured" the Radio? ....(*dodges bricks*, it was just a thought 
)
But, personally, I reckon having that shit on Urban Radio will damage any credibility it (Urban/Urban Radio) may be looking for in the future .... I think it would be a stupid thing to do.
I also fear (as others on this thread have) that the Anti Semitic crap will be just under the surface at all times. On every single one of those websites, (which BTW, Dr. J actually uses for sources) has the same "the Jews own all the Banks" rubbish....Why even give that sort of rubbish a forum to speak from in the first place?
But what I really want to know is....
But who is this secret special guest??? ...
is it someone other than the previously mentioned Bill still?
)But, personally, I reckon having that shit on Urban Radio will damage any credibility it (Urban/Urban Radio) may be looking for in the future .... I think it would be a stupid thing to do.
I also fear (as others on this thread have) that the Anti Semitic crap will be just under the surface at all times. On every single one of those websites, (which BTW, Dr. J actually uses for sources) has the same "the Jews own all the Banks" rubbish....Why even give that sort of rubbish a forum to speak from in the first place?
Oh dear....
But what I really want to know is....
But who is this secret special guest??? ...
is it someone other than the previously mentioned Bill still?
Wess
Categorically there will be no anti-semitic views broadcast on these shows, or any form of race hatred, without question.
In the post I made at the start of the thread, I invited questions, I'm very keen to put questions from urbanites to my guests as long as they are not abusive. I would have a phone-in if that was technically possible. Perhaps someone could know how to work that out?
Categorically there will be no anti-semitic views broadcast on these shows, or any form of race hatred, without question.
In the post I made at the start of the thread, I invited questions, I'm very keen to put questions from urbanites to my guests as long as they are not abusive. I would have a phone-in if that was technically possible. Perhaps someone could know how to work that out?
Is there a way this could be resolved via making it a democratic debate rather than brute censorship? I understand not wanting to put out controversial views unchallenged but perhaps there could be two interviews - one with Dr Jazzz'z mystery man and one with someone who actively pushes the opposite point of view - professional debunkers if you like.
Followed by a chaired debate which looks at the nature of conspiracy theory, why it has emerged so strongly in recent times, what it says about our society - examining the phenomenon as a cultural artefact. Because it is a significant cultural artefact of our time and as such it is worth meditating upon why. IMO there is a real opportunity here for some serious informed discussion about why the concept of "conspiracy" has taken hold in recent times. The cultural/political/sociological roots of the movement, what social conditions have contributed to its recent visibility, and why it provokes such strong opinions.
This could be an extremely enlightening and informative deconstruction of the whole shebam if handled intelligently. I think one way of steering it in this direction (sorry if this is buggering up your ideas Dr Jazzz) would be to make the central topics of the interview more about conspiracy theory in general with things like vaccinations, 9/11 sub-topics used to illustrate the general theme.
Followed by a chaired debate which looks at the nature of conspiracy theory, why it has emerged so strongly in recent times, what it says about our society - examining the phenomenon as a cultural artefact. Because it is a significant cultural artefact of our time and as such it is worth meditating upon why. IMO there is a real opportunity here for some serious informed discussion about why the concept of "conspiracy" has taken hold in recent times. The cultural/political/sociological roots of the movement, what social conditions have contributed to its recent visibility, and why it provokes such strong opinions.
This could be an extremely enlightening and informative deconstruction of the whole shebam if handled intelligently. I think one way of steering it in this direction (sorry if this is buggering up your ideas Dr Jazzz) would be to make the central topics of the interview more about conspiracy theory in general with things like vaccinations, 9/11 sub-topics used to illustrate the general theme.
Masseuse said:
What I said above about fruitloops getting an (uninterrupted) statement on u75 and the spreading the address around as though it were an endorsement.
I promise this is what would happen. It's the way their Argument from Authority works...
Masseuse said:
Now that could be interesting...
I reckon so.... it's such a waste of time trying to persuade or convince people with such strong views either way on the subject. No-one is going to give any ground - it will just turn into the usual (very dull) slanging match.
Personally I love doing little analysis thingies of this type of stuff and would be happy to put forward ideas for themes and questions. If it's handled properly and intelligently the transcript of the show would also be a publication possibility. There is very little in the way of serious (academic even) discussion on the topic because it provokes such strong emotional reactions (which is something in itself worthy of examination).
A similar theme was handled in this way in Jung's book on Flying Saucers for example. Regardless of his personal beliefs on the subject he approached it in a fairly objective (as far as one can be objective about anything) manner, examining the whys of its sudden appearance in contemporary society and previous analogous incarnations (eg alleged visitaions from angels, rather than aliens).
Personally I love doing little analysis thingies of this type of stuff and would be happy to put forward ideas for themes and questions. If it's handled properly and intelligently the transcript of the show would also be a publication possibility. There is very little in the way of serious (academic even) discussion on the topic because it provokes such strong emotional reactions (which is something in itself worthy of examination).
A similar theme was handled in this way in Jung's book on Flying Saucers for example. Regardless of his personal beliefs on the subject he approached it in a fairly objective (as far as one can be objective about anything) manner, examining the whys of its sudden appearance in contemporary society and previous analogous incarnations (eg alleged visitaions from angels, rather than aliens).
I just emailed a guy who is a nobel prize winner. Would he be a 'fruitloop' is he agreed to come on the show? Do you think he would be saying 'appeared on Urban75 radio' as his endorsement? Yet the mainstream media (largely) ignores this chap. Appearing on urban75 radio means nothing except a chance for you guys to hear stuff you wouldn't normally and put questions to these guys.laptop said:
Maybe two separate programmes then? One with no-holds barred conspiracy theories explained by their defenders and a corresponding interview with professional sceptics. Good old slanging match territory.
Then a reasoned disection of the goings on in the two interviews - a commentary on them, not a forum to agree or disagree with their views, but a reading between the lines and an analysis along the lines I outlined above. Would be brilliant if Susan Blakemore is interested in chairing - would lend the whole proceedings plenty of gravitas if editor is concerned about this site being associated with certain ideas he is uncomfortable with. I know other academics who may be interested in taking part too. I'd bloody love to take part in a discussion but would bow out gracefully if more prestigious names come forth.
Then a reasoned disection of the goings on in the two interviews - a commentary on them, not a forum to agree or disagree with their views, but a reading between the lines and an analysis along the lines I outlined above. Would be brilliant if Susan Blakemore is interested in chairing - would lend the whole proceedings plenty of gravitas if editor is concerned about this site being associated with certain ideas he is uncomfortable with. I know other academics who may be interested in taking part too. I'd bloody love to take part in a discussion but would bow out gracefully if more prestigious names come forth.
Masseuse said:
A third time, the thing that would be most destructive of the site would be conspiranoids getting time to put their ramblings over uninterrupted. Then they get to claim that their paranoid fantasies are "as broadcast on urban75".
And interesting that this proposal should resurface just as urban75's public profile has shot up massively due to the interesting juxtaposition of Badger Kitten and Brian. Next best thing to the BBC
They've got their own bloody sites, after all. If DrJ's proposals are as serious as he says, he could set them up on Art Bell, or Rense, or prisonplanet in an instant. The entire point is to associate it with someone who isn't a fruitloop, to claim Authority. Or, more worryingly, to destroy urban75, either as a place for rational debate - or entirely.
Or maybe it's merely personal, and it's DrJ's reaction to being comprehensively slaughered over his attempts to cook up conspiracy theories over Thursday last week. So now he's wasting lots of time and getting lots of textual attention for himself, if not for his nutcase "ideas", in retaliation.
And our experience of him on this site over the past week is reason enough to reject any project he proposes. I'm utterly surprised he's not banned: him being apparently a nice person in the 3-D world has nothing to do with his effect here - which is sick, twisted, repulsive, insulting to the dead and their families and dangerous to small children.
Masseuse said:
But radio doesn't work like that - that kind of call-and-response is a text idea, or a 3-D meeting. The fact of getting aired and thereby stealing a part of u75's reputation is what these people seek. Even if they don't slice up and re-host the recording, the faithful turn off or start ranting at their computers when their heros are finished, and the stupid go away with the idea that the fruitloops are "endorsed".
Masseuse said:
Nope, it'd have the opposite effect. I mentioned it assuming it was something to do instead. If it were associated in any way with some kind of fruitloopfest, it'd increase the damage. We've discussed the Argument from Authority before, haven't we?
MysteryGuest
beyond boring and interesting
laptop said:
imo this is exactly what would happen. We've already had DrJ making much of somebody-or-other's "Nobel Prize" credentials on this thread. Which to me actually means very little. One thing I learnt years ago is that scientists, or (*gasp*) politicians, or military heads (no gasp there) can also hold particularly "unconventional" views. It's cos they're humans innit?
I have no idea how radio works so fair enough geezer
Bit of a conspiracy theory in itself.
I'm still not sure how a programme on this would injure urban's reputation though. From one interview? The man in question has been interviewed on the BBC - hardly ruined their rep did it? It was just a programme about a particular topic, not a reflection of the institutions views.
Why should it be any different for urban? Is each show some sort of reflection of a mythical collective urban personality?
MysteryGuest
beyond boring and interesting
Masseuse said:
Wot massy said.
MysteryGuest said:
We have?
* peeks *
A while a go I was drinking with some Fellows of the Royal Society. Someone's recent Nobel was mentioned. "And he's the one who's not gone batty yet?" was the response...
The madness is partly a media creation. Someone wins a Nobel for doing something very fiddly with cell membranes* and gets asked for their opinion on economics, war, life on other planets, and art... they're bound to have some odd ideas about some things, but now they have a platform for all of them.
* (as a random example - I'm sure all three winners of the 1988 prize for chemistry are the exceptions)
MysteryGuest
beyond boring and interesting
How can thought be "small"?
What do we mean when we say a thought is "deep"?
Why - and in what way - do we use spatial terminology to refer to something as essentially dimensionless as the subjective experience of thought?
Eh?
What do we mean when we say a thought is "deep"?
Why - and in what way - do we use spatial terminology to refer to something as essentially dimensionless as the subjective experience of thought?
Eh?
MysteryGuest
beyond boring and interesting
Masseuse said:Time for bed Mystery Gusset
No it's not! This is the sort of thing I think about all the time, anyway!
It's hard being me you know...
</sympathy trawling mode>
MysteryGuest
beyond boring and interesting
I actually really like questions like that.
Heh... heh... heh
Heh... heh... heh
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Mr Editor give the lad a chance ffs!
Why not actually hear the peice before just saying "NO!"
you might like it.....mibbe
Why not actually hear the peice before just saying "NO!"
you might like it.....mibbe
The nobel prize was just an example (that I had emailed minutes ago) to counter laptop's suggestion that it would be a big deal to be 'aired on U75 radio' - which I think is laughable. This is going to be a service for US to hear; these people will have likely have way better stuff in their CVs. You're right, all those people can hold unconventional views - this is a chance to hear some of them first hand.MysteryGuest said:
But are you sure a nobel prize means 'very little'?
Anyway, Kary Mullis declined the interview.
I got bored of the slanging match a long time ago. As for my own "position" on the subject - I think, like most things, it is a little more complicated than x view is true and y view is false. There is reciprocity, overlapping, truths on both sides, mistakes on both sides.
For example I am uncomfortable with the idea that all vaccines are evil. But I am also uncomfortable with the idea that we should simply accept what our governments and drug companies tell us what is safe and what is not. I am not comfortable, either, with the idea of small children being injected with substances such as mercury? Does this make me a fruitloop or simply someone who is trying to get past the hysteria and weigh up the evidence?
Conspiracy theorists are often accused of "muddying the water", of making the "truth" more difficult to ascertain through misinformation. This charge equally applies to those creating the narrative of the "official line" on events. Sometimes we are given information, sometimes we are subjected to propaganda. Which is which is down to interpretation. But the two sides to this conspiracy coin are equally responsible IMO for the obfuscation of the truth.
Masseuse said:
Well, it was long and not very well-written...
Masseuse said:Bit of a conspiracy theory in itself.
Nah, that'd be if I thought they had it planned... rather than simply being unaware of the the world outside their heads.
Masseuse said:
I've lost track of who was proposed. Who? Interviewed when and by what programme?
Note that a decent-ish BBC interview like Hard Talk has a team of probably two or three researchers going into the interviewee in some depth, often for a couple of days, and that the interviewer is unafraid to interrupt with "but that's rubbish, because you said in August 1988..."
The only times I can think of when someone gets an uninterrupted spiel of their own devising are the Reith Lecture, the Queen's Speech and Thought for the Day. All of which have BBC editorial input into the text anyway.
So. These oh-so-eminent candidates: would they appear under normal rules of engagement of radio journalism, which are that the moment they say something that needs to be challenged they are interrupted immediately, by someone who is well-informed about their position and doesn't hold it - and they listen quietly to the question? And get asked 14 times if they don't answer
All the rest is advertising.