Sci-Fi et al sue NASA

[LightPhoenix]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/10/21/ufo.records.reut/index.html

Grrrrr.

"Not intended to create a buzz" my left *ahem*.

I'll admit, I think the cause is admirable, if a bit foolish in it's expectations the government will comply.

No, I'm more pissy with The Sci-Fi channel and their insistence on trying to "strike it big" when the real problem with their network is their total resistence to advertising any of their regular shows, or their network at all. Instead of using that money to even do a little advertising on a show, they decide to sue the government. And then they wonder why their shows aren't getting the numbers they want, or why numbers are declining over time (though part of that is a natural phenomenon).

I mean, if they had ANY advertising on Farscape, numbers would have been better. But god forbid anyone at SFC actually be thinking for once.

 

[Wycen]

I almost wish the SciFi channel is crushed and dies.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I almost wish the SciFi channel is crushed and dies.

I do wish that the execs would be replaced by people who actually give a rip about sci-fi. The current bunch has the business sense of Lorraine Williams and "clearly know what's best" for scifi.

 

[Skade]

I have no opinion on UFOs at all, so what I am about to say has no bias in that at least. Would it be so unusual for the Enquirer, Star or even CNN to do such a thing? The lawsuit will be made with the intention of releasing documents that they either belive will make good programming, or that they feel should be in the public view. Were it a new agency no one would bat an eye, were it not directly related to UFOs.

 

[Umbran]

of using that money to even do a little advertising on a show, they decide to sue the government.

The ironic thing being that this suit does exactly what you're griping that they don't do. They've got shows about this. The suit generates advertising and publicity for those shows and the channel in general. How much do you want to bet that the CNN article gets more eyeballs (with more retention) per dollar than a standard advertisement? In this case, legal fees = advertising dollars.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I don't like the tilt and spin but I love the information. A lot of things are hidden from us and while I do think the government has the right to keep something quite they should also inform us of after a time if the interest is there, just look at Hoover!

I want to know what the government got from Nikola Testa!

 

[Umbran]

I want to know what the government got from Nikola Testa!

I think you mean "Tesla". Nicholas Testa is an actor of small note that I doubt the government cares about much.

 

[Mercule]

Yup. It'll probably get more air time than an equal dollar amount of advertising would.

Still, using the legal system like this is a travesty. I think a suitable response to such a frivolous lawsuit would be to count up the airtime this story receives (or best estimate) at SFC's expense, determine what the average prime-time news commercial spot costs, then double the whole sum. Fine SFC double that dollar figure. The fine should be put into a fund for fighting frivolous lawsuits.

Of course, the fact that I don't believe extra-terrestrials have ever visited Earth (and therefore, there are no secret documents on the matter) only inflames me more.

Maybe next month they can sue the gov't for the plans to the mind-control satellites so that we can learn how to fold our tin-foil hats correctly. Or sue for the proof the earth is flat.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Would it be so unusual for the Enquirer, Star or even CNN to do such a thing? The lawsuit will be made with the intention of releasing documents that they either belive will make good programming, or that they feel should be in the public view. Were it a new agency no one would bat an eye, were it not directly related to UFOs.

That's the point. It wouldn't be unusual for them because they're news agencies. The Sci-Fi Channel is not. And I believe instead of wasting money on this, their dollars could be better spent in any number of places - primarily advertising. Which leads me to...

The ironic thing being that this suit does exactly what you're griping that they don't do. They've got shows about this. The suit generates advertising and publicity for those shows and the channel in general.

Irony? No. Sad and pathetic? Yes. The amount of lasting viewers that this will generate for the channel will be next to none. People might tune in to see what the show is about. But without good, lasting series (which they seem intent on cancelling) and advertising to back that up, they're not going to build up a solid viewer base. That is what SFC needs - not a bunch of one-shot punches to the arm, which is exactly what this is.

SFC hasn't learned this basic tenet of running a station after how many years? That is what upsets me about the whole thing. NBC has Friends, Food Network has Emeril and Iron Chef, even CNN has Larry King. But the SFC execs, for whatever reasons, decided that crappy shows and one-shots are a replacement for these mainstays, and they're just simply not. Which is why the cancellation of Farscape was such a mystery - it was doing very well in the ratings, definitely was a mainstay show, and they cancelled it.

Now, they have Stargate, and they're promoting that fairly well. And it definitely is a mainstay. So I guess I see hope for the channel, that someone there knows what they are doing. But with shows like Scare Tactics, Tremors, and earlier hits like Black Scorpion... I just have to doubt.

And hey, I'll be the first to admit my bias towards the channel for cancelling Farscape.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Meh, sorry.