Sci-Fi et al sue NASA

[LightPhoenix]

Third time is NOT a charm.

 

[barsoomcore]

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

No, no, I think he's talking about those strange parcels Testa had delivered to the White House last year.

What IS Nicholas Testa giving to the government?

 

[Ranger REG]

I don't know why they're doing this. There is no such thing as UFO and extraterrestrial. Science fiction is just that ... fiction for entertainment.

Besides, what advanced species out there would be interested in a child-like savage race? We got a long way to go before humanity is one step evolved from mosquitos. Even if there is someone else out there, we're going to shoot first and dissect them later. We're hardwired to be on the top of the hierarchy.

As for SCI-FI being involved, it's only logical. I mean we shouldn't rely on Emeril LaGassi and the Food Network to investigate any UFO cover-ups and conspiracies.

 

[Skade]

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...
[/i]

Any television station exists for only one reason, and that is to make money, bring in viewers, make more money, drive ratings and make money. Even PBS needs to make money, the only possible exception to this is C-Span, and even they have gone from only showing actual proceedings, to having documentaries and debates. SciFi Channel and CNN would have the exact same reasons for making this suit. Sci-Fi, and the hypothetical CNN of this example, believe that there is the prospect for programming which will draw in viewers to make money, etc.

I have no doubt that someone at Sci-Fi saw this as an opportunity for advertising, but the very fact that they had "exhausted all administrative options" at NASA implies that the effort was not short in the making. As much as this is true, it is equally likely that someone thee really believes in UFOs and the occult. Their Tuesday lineup is a block of conspiracy theory/occult doumentaries, a recent change.

 

[Umbran]

Still, using the legal system like this is a travesty. I think a suitable response to such a frivolous lawsuit ...

Yeah, well, you call it frivolous. Others cite the Freedom of Information Act. To-may-to. To-mah-to.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Any television station exists for only one reason, and that is to make money, bring in viewers, make more money, drive ratings and make money.

Well, I don't claim to be a network executive, but I'm really not sure how SFC expects to be making money when they keep putting out crappy programs, cancelling good ones, and pulling stunts when they could be putting money into advertising their own good shows instead, thereby boosting the number of viewers.

A few years ago SFC had a pretty good Friday line-up. It worked well, and served as a good jump-off point for new shows. They even attempted to expand to another night (I think Tuesday). Then they decided to get greedy, and try and "fix" what wasn't broken.

Among other things, around that time pretty much all advertising for Farscape stopped, it was moved around, and eventually cancelled when numbers weren't good enough - despite the fact that it was still consistantly one of their highest rated shows. They blamed "low numbers" on the show when in fact a combination of near non-existant advertising, a Friday night line-up (the weakest night second only to Saturday), and natural tendencies (a show's numbers almost always go down over the season) were to blame.

Now, I'm not a network executive, but even I understand these basic principles. If they spent even half the time and money working on bolstering their line-up and advertising their channel and shows that they do with pointless crap like this, I have no doubt they would see their precious increase in viewership. Which means more money, which means more investment, which means more money.

I can only conclude one of two things. One, that no one at that station gives a damn about sci-fi, horror, and the like. In which case, they're damned to fail anyway, especially with genres that aren't that popular on television. Two, that the executives over there have no clue what-so-ever how to run a station. Especially given actions that they have taken when they had stuff that was, for all intents and purposes, working.

 

[Umbran]

Well, I don't claim to be a network executive, but I'm really not sure how SFC expects to be making money when they keep putting out crappy programs, cancelling good ones, and pulling stunts when they could be putting money into advertising their own good shows instead, thereby boosting the number of viewers.

*shrug*. I'd have to point out that SciFi's ratings are doing well under the current scheme. perhaps they expect to make money because there's a largish segment of the viewing public that likes what we call crappy programming?

90% of everything is crud. That includes other peoples' viewing tastes

 

[LightPhoenix]

*shrug*. I'd have to point out that SciFi's ratings are doing well under the current scheme. perhaps they expect to make money because there's a largish segment of the viewing public that likes what we call crappy programming?

90% of everything is crud. That includes other peoples' viewing tastes

Point.

Part of my ire is frustration. There's so much classic stuff that they could be showing, and we get "Shark Attack 2". I mean, at least show Jaws! If they have a strategy, and it's working, then I really have no idea how it is.

 

[Mercule]

Yeah, well, you call it frivolous. Others cite the Freedom of Information Act. To-may-to. To-mah-to.

Hey, if I thought they were motivated by the cover-up angle, that'd be one thing. What I'm referring to is suing someone just to get some advertising. I don't care if it's the gov't, or a private entity.

Of course, the fact that I find the very idea of ET visitors to Earth to be ludicrous probably sharpens my cynicism.

 

[trancejeremy]

As someone who is actually interested in UFOs, I have to say that the Sci-Fi channel is an embarassment. But it will probably do well in the ratings.

I remember watching a supposed documentary of theirs, and for 10 minutes, they show Jacques Vallee. He's one of the few Ufologists that is trained as a scientist. He's one of the few scientists that actually goes to supposed UFO encounter sites, and he's one of the few scientists that can actually offer proof. (Though just proof something odd happened, not necessarily aliens).

Then right after him, up comes some other idiot who babbled on randomly, and then after him, we get Bud Hopkins, blabbering about abductions and hypnosis. Bud Hopkins. His career as an artist really qualifies him as an expert on hypnosis. As if hypnosis actually was a valid way to recover memories. Gah.

The thing is, the real stuff is rather boring.

The stuff the Sci-Fi channel tries to push is sensationalist, and the cover up angle attracts all the conspiracy nuts. No one wants to believe that Roswell was just a Mogul balloon.