# The world media is too gullible. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284 "2003-01-22T20:38:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284/21 "2003-01-25T07:27:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Consuela Bobuela \* > \*\*CNN didn’t help either. Rael and his female crony of the orange streaked hair were interviewed on Crossfire, Connie Chung, etc. > They certainly got their 15 minutes of fame, but what on earth was the purpose of it? A recruitment strategy? > 😕 \*\* Possibly… Maybe just ego. Probably only one guy knows for sure. A half billion dollars worth of publicity is something many organizations wish they had. Before this the Raelians supposedly had about 60,000 members worldwide, but they were still relatively unknown. Now they are known around the world. I will be interested to see how many members they have in a year or two. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284/22 "2003-01-25T07:57:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GOM \* > 2. What dictionary do you use? \*\* The one with the big _WHOOSH!_ on the cover. ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284/23 "2003-01-25T08:06:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*The one with the big _WHOOSH!_ on the cover. \*\* Nike? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284/24 "2003-01-25T09:16:02Z")
singular: medium plural: media “The world media **are** too gullible.” [Citation](http://grcpublishing.grc.nasa.gov/WordOfWeekArchive/week45.cfm) [Citation](http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/011501.htm) [Citation](http://www.cjohnsonenterprisesltd.com/HelpfulHints.html) ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284/25 "2003-01-25T10:53:11Z")
Am I “happy” with it? I don’t know what you mean. It’s like asking, “Am I happy with the fact that ‘America’s Funniest Home Videos’ refuses to go away, that just when I think they’ve canceled it, another ‘special’ turns up on my TV.” No, I’m not “happy” with it. I would much prefer that ABC run quality movies, well-written sitcoms, and Monty Python episodes. I would also prefer that [CNN.com](http://CNN.com) and the BBC online quit featuring purely speculative stories on the latest medical research–the fruits of only one small study–as “news”. However, that ain’t gonna happen. It’s the entertainment industy, Gom. Whatcha gonna do? \<\< shrug \>\> The media run stories all the time that aren’t “proven” yet, stories where the story is just, “Well, this guy _says_…” > [@](#): > > \*\*If the news media is going to be this gullible I expect we will see all types of other phony claims floating around. \*\* Golly, where you been? 😉 The Raelians aren’t the first. This has been going on ever since. The following BBC stories are all pure speculation, and AFAIK have not been confirmed by any other scientists. They’re just somebody’s pet theory, but the BBC ran the stories anyway, because it’s “news” and it’s “product” and they’re in the business of selling “news” as “product”. [Prehistoric Moon map unearthed](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/325290.stm) [Ice Age star map discovered](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/871930.stm) [Oldest lunar calendar identified](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/975360.stm) [Magnetic ‘solution’ to crop circle puzzle](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/872142.stm) And then there’s the recurring story about big cats breeding in the wild in Britain. [‘Puma-like’ animal spotted again](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2639719.stm) [Big cats ‘on the increase’](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2220922.stm) [‘Beast of Bodmin’ captured on video](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/136546.stm) This story has been going on for _years_. By your standards, the BBC shouldn’t run any of these “big cats are breeding in Britain” stories until it’s been proven that big cats really are breeding in Britain, and they shouldn’t have run the story of the video of the “Beast of Bodmin” until they could prove that it wasn’t a total hoax. But ya know what? All the story says is: > [@](#): > > Video footage of what is claimed to be the ‘Beast of Bodmin’ has been released. That’s all they have to do, is say that it’s “claimed to be” the Beast of Bodmin, and they’re covered. It’s not their job to go find out whether or not it’s just a video of someone’s pet leopard running around out in the horse pasture. It’s their job to sell news, so they did. And then there’s [Scientists using high-tech methods to examine ghostly goings-on at Edinburgh Castle say they are encouraged by their findings. Volunteers have reported apparitions and physical contact during the 10-day investigation into the vaults and tunnels around the historic fortress. The results appear to bear out stories that some of the chambers under the castle are haunted…](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/1282114.stm) They ran this story because statistics show that half of all Britons believe in ghosts. Ghosts are news. Ghosts sell. But they do “check facts”. They check to make sure the press release, and the basic story behind it, is genuine. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1446792.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1446792.stm) > [@](#): > > Friday, 20 July, 2001, 09:52 GMT 10:52 UK > Major the musical a ‘hoax’ > > A planned theatre musical about the life of former Tory prime minister John Major has been disclosed as a hoax. > > BBC Radio 4’s Today programme discovered that ITV2’s spoof entertainment show Gatecrashers had made up the story after one of its reporters became suspicious. > > In revealing the truth, Gatecrashers said that their Major musical story was intended as a joke but also as an attempt to expose sloppy journalism. Somebody at Radio 4 got suspicious, made some phone calls, did some checking, and discovered that there was no real story. So, put in that context, the Clonaid story was just another “fringe” story, admittedly a pretty farfetched one, but, hey, before 1997 nobody would have believed a story about a cloned sheep, either. And notice their deeply skeptical slant on it. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2608655.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2608655.stm) > [@](#): > > A controversial company linked to a UFO sect says it has produced the world’s first cloned human baby. > > However, the announcement has been viewed with deep scepticism by the scientific community at large - and no proof has so far been put forward. And the penalty for the BBC for _not_ running the Clonaid story, whether or not it turned out to be real, would have been a loss of ratings/sales. People would have looked to them for news of the “human clone” story that they’d been hearing about all day, and if it wasn’t featured on the Beeb, they’d shrug and go find some other news outlet to give them the skinny. In the BBC’s eyes, this would have been a Very Bad Thing. So, they checked the Clonaid story, found that the press release, and the basic story behind it, were genuine–that there really was an organization that was claiming the first human clone–and they ran it, the same way they ran the “Ice Age star map” story and the “Beast of Bodmin” video. It’s not their job to decide whether Edinburgh Castle really is haunted, or whether black panthers are breeding in Wales, and it’s not their job to decide whether Clonaid really did have a human clone. ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284/26 "2003-01-25T17:27:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\*singular: medium > plural: media > > “The world media **are** too gullible.” > > \*\* Thanks for the correction. English never were my favoritest subject. Besides, I didn’t really want to bring mediums up at this time. We already have one thread going about psychics… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284/27 "2003-01-25T17:37:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\* > > So, they checked the Clonaid story, found that the press release, and the basic story behind it, were genuine–that there really was an organization that was claiming the first human clone–and they ran it, the same way they ran the “Ice Age star map” story and the “Beast of Bodmin” video. It’s not their job to decide whether Edinburgh Castle really is haunted, or whether black panthers are breeding in Wales, and it’s not their job to decide whether Clonaid really did have a human clone. \*\* So you agree with me that they are indeed gullible. You just believe it’s okay because it’s happened before. Right? I prefer to go by Sagan’s comment: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Modified Sagan quote? “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, except in the news business.” ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2003, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284/28 "2003-01-25T19:54:24Z")
I believe it’s okay for what is essentially a part of the entertainment industry to run stories that they consider “entertainment”. I believe it’s okay for a business enterprise in a capitalist system to offer a product that they believe will sell. I believe it’s okay for media people who are not scientists to go ahead and run stories about possible scientific breakthroughs that may or may not be confirmed by later research. Carl Sagan’s quote is in reference to scientists proving things. It’s not applicable to the media. If it were, then we wouldn’t see any more of those “New research shows…” medical articles, since all of them present extraordinary claims with very little evidence. According to you, the BBC shouldn’t have run any of these stories. [Brain injection offers Huntington’s hope](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1537313.stm) [Gene hope for Huntington’s patients](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2068348.stm) [Bile may treat Huntington’s](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2151785.stm) [Lifestyle link to Huntington’s disease](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/636823.stm) [Dye could halt Huntington’s](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2681381.stm) From Merriam-Webster online: > [@](#): > > Main Entry: gull·ible > Variant(s): also gull·able /'g&-l&-b&l/ > Function: adjective > Date: 1818 > : easily duped or cheated Explain how the BBC was “easily duped or cheated” by Clonaid. What did Clonaid cheat them out of? In what way did Clonaid dupe the BBC? > [@](#): > > Main Entry: 2dupe > Function: transitive verb > Inflected Form(s): duped; dup·ing > Date: 1704 > : to make a dupe of > > - dup·er noun > > DUPE suggests unwariness in the person deluded > [@](#): > > Main Entry: 1dupe > Pronunciation: 'düp also 'dyüp > Function: noun > Etymology: French, from Middle French duppe, probably alteration of huppe hoopoe > Date: 1681 > : one that is easily deceived or cheated : FOOL In what way were the BBC duped by Clonaid? In what way did Clonaid make a fool out of the BBC? In what way was the BBC unwary, in what way did they not know what they were getting into? They ran the story exactly as they received it from Clonaid–“These people say they have a human clone, but so far they haven’t produced any evidence for it.” The BBC was not “unwary” or “foolish”. Quite the contrary, they knew exactly what they were getting–a story about a possible breakthrough, but also a possible hoax, otherwise they wouldn’t have put so many disclaimers in it. Now, if you want to say that Clonaid “ **used** ” the BBC, then I’d agree with you 100%. I agree they held that press conference solely for the reason of getting themselves some publicity. But please, let’s not try to maintain that the BBC was duped, fooled, or cheated. They were not gullible, they knew exactly what they were dealing with. They probably get hundreds of invitations to similar press conferences from crackpots every year. The Higher Ups at the BBC go through them and make a conscious choice which stories to run. No gullibility here, just a sense for what the news consumer wants by way of “product”. ---
**Author:** ![Splanky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b2d939/32.png) [@Splanky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Splanky)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2003, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284/29 "2003-01-26T02:31:57Z")
No, they should feel “raelly stupid”. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2003, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284/30 "2003-01-26T19:11:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*I > > But please, let’s not try to maintain that the BBC was duped, fooled, or cheated. They were not gullible, they knew exactly what they were dealing with. They probably get hundreds of invitations to similar press conferences from crackpots every year. The Higher Ups at the BBC go through them and make a conscious choice which stories to run. No gullibility here, just a sense for what the news consumer wants by way of “product”. \*\* Okay. Everyone except the BBC was gullible. The funny thing about the BBC is that they usually pull about one hoax per year of their own… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2003, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284/31 "2003-01-26T19:14:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Splanky \* > \*\*No, they should feel “raelly stupid”. 😉 \*\* hahaha I think you summed up this thread! 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-world-media-is-too-gullible/150284.md?page=1)