Skeptical Briefs: So why Trebuchet? What attracted you to this particular siege weapon from the Middle Ages? 

George Hrab: I knew that this album was going to have songs that were about being thrown into situations (or throwing things into situations) or being flung (or being the flinger). Flight, air, movement, attack, a siege, and storming the battlements all played a metaphorical role in most of the songs, so I thought that a catapult would be a great symbol to connect them all. That being said, Catapult is a horrible title, [and] Trebuchet seemed way cooler. Plus, a trebuchet is something that is powered by principles as opposed to potential kinetic energy. I like that a “cocked and loaded” trebuchet is actually much safer but way more deadly and accurate than a “cocked and loaded” catapult. That’s a great concept that brings much nerd joy to my DNA.

SB: Let’s say you just bought a full-scale trebuchet from the Acme Corporation—maybe it was returned by Wile E. Coyote or something—and a really, really, big yard. You open it up and want to test it to make sure it works. What three test objects would you use, and how far would they fly? 

Hrab: 1. [Rush drummer] Neil Peart’s drum set.  [It wouldn’t be] a very far flyer but a wondrous clang would ensue.

2. Glenn Beck. [He wouldn’t be] a very far flyer but a wondrous clang would ensue.

3. I would love to launch a smaller trebuchet just for the pure Magrittian joy.

SB: You, like Phil [Plait] and Richard [Wiseman] and [Ben Radford], are a prominent, bald, bespectacled skeptic. To what do you attribute this curious phenomenon? 

Hrab: Isn’t it obvious? Brilliant thinking causes poor vision and hair loss. Duh.

SB: What did you think of Phil’s famous TAM “Don’t Be a Dick” speech? Some people thought it was brilliant (“Restore respect and courtesy to skepticism!”), while to others thought it seemed like a straw man argument (“Who is saying you should be a dick?”). What’s your take? 

Hrab: I thought that Phil’s talk was excellent. (His vision and hair were really affected that day.) His argument that being nasty will seldom convince anyone of a proposition, especially when it’s a hard sell like rationality, made complete sense to me. I don’t think that it was a straw man argument because there are times when you should be a dick. One’s “dickishness” should be reserved for appropriate occasions, much like thermonuclear weapons—or live renditions of “Freebird.” I think that being nasty in order to score self-satisfying points in an argument is an understandable urge, but we need to be bigger than that. It’s tough, but all things worthwhile are tough. Like knitting a macramé house.

SB: I attended your Geologic Show at Dragon*Con, and it was great. I do have to ask, however: Are there any puns or double entendres that you especially regret? Maybe they were just really awful when performed, or caused some disease? 

Hrab: I regret nothing. The pope’s wife is not “The Holy C,” and attractive nuns are still hard to come by.

SB: I see from your awesome new CD that at least two of the song titles are actually book titles. What was it about those books that inspired the songwriter in you? 

Hrab: Ideas are always the hardest thing for me to come up with. Once I have a concept, be it for a song, sketch, or interpretive dance involving feather boas, the rest is just details. I love working on the details, but hate coming up with the concept. So if some writer has taken the time to come up with a brilliant title and subject, I figure an “ode” to that book saves me the trouble of being creative on my own. Steal from the best, right? Plus Death from the Skies and God Is Not Great are just phenomenal books. I guess that plays into it too. 

SB: Why do you think it is that people get all weird when you suddenly bring up masturbation? 

Hrab: Not as weird as when you bring up male ass play. Right? Am I right? Hello?

SB: Two of my favorite songs are “Far” and “When I Was Your Age.” Any particular things inspire those songs? 

Hrab: Both of those songs were written in a very brief amount of time, and initially for other people. “Far” was commissioned by the fine folks over at the 365 Days of Astronomy podcast. They asked me to write a theme that “didn’t sound like Enya.” Luckily, I minored in Not Sounding Like Enya, so that worked out ok. “When I Was Your Age” was written for the incredible guys in Beatnik Turtle, who were writing and recording an entire album in twenty-eight days. They called and asked if I’d write something for them, so thirty hours later I sent them a demo of “When I was Your Age.” They recorded their version, and I subsequently recorded mine. There must be something to this working on a deadline thing. . . .  

SB: As you know, one of the things that skeptics and scientists often battle is misinformation. Yet you have repeatedly been seen in public associating with a certain Ms. Information. How do you explain this contradiction? 

Hrab: There is little to no misinformation in Ms. Information, just as every adult is not a dolt. 

SB: As you know, there are many famous musical rivalries—Neil Young and Lynryrd Skynyrd, Biggee and Tupac, Pavarotti and Lady Gaga. Many of your fans may not realize that you have also been engaged in a similar musical smackdown of your own. I am of course referring to George Harb, a musician who, according to his website, “can only be described as unique, talented, helpful, and caring.” Yet Harb was quoted as calling you “a punk” who is “pasty and hairless as a newborn camel’s testicles.” [Editor’s note: We were unable to verify the source or accuracy of this quote. It may have come from Harb himself, or been paraphrased by one of his fans, or we may have just made it up.] George, I don’t want to fuel any trash-talking, but do you have an answer for your fans? And can you address the rumors of reconciliation and an upcoming Hrab/Harb “Find the Typo” national tour?

Hrab: Mr. Harb has not responded to numerous attempts at contact and is apparently going on tour with both Lady Goo Goo and Stang. All three artists are touring under the moniker “Vowel Movement” and I am deeply disappointed that I was not asked to open. Or at least help move gear.

SB: You mentioned that songs like “Far” and “When I Was Your Age” [WIWYA] were written for other people. Do you often write songs for others, and is the writing process any different than when you’re writing for yourself?

Hrab: “Far” and WIWYA were unique in that they were commissioned, but the writing process is pretty much the same as when I’m writing for myself. If anything, it tends to be more efficient because there’s usually a deadline involved, and I absolutely stink at motivating myself. Ultimately though, since I figure that someone is hiring me to write the thing, I would guess they want the piece to be “somewhat Geoish”—which might be the title of my next album by the way.

SB: Who do you consider to be the top five living songwriters today and why?

Hrab: Lists are tough, and there are always weird caveats. For example, I think Stevie Wonder is an absolute genius and he’s written enough incredible material to last ten lifetimes but really hasn’t done anything to ring my bell in two decades. But he’s still alive—so do we count him? Same with Sting. Someone like Elvis Costello has pounded out amazing songs, and continues to do so, and is always trying out different styles and sounds and textures, so he’s absolutely on the list. Alf Clausen, who writes music for The Simpsons, is an absolutely brilliant writer/parody/homage/soundtrack composer, but [he] isn’t necessarily seen as a “songwriter” [even though he] has more skill than most of the artists on billboard. Eminem has such a distinct style and approach and is instantly recognizable, but traditional folks would be cautious in calling him a “songwriter.” I love most everything that Sheryl Crow has done—and Peter Gabriel, the Beastie Boys, Paul McCartney, and the boys in Rush are all still technically “alive” so. . .

SB: I’ve had a longstanding debate about meaning in song lyrics. When I was a teenager and in my twenties I hated songs that were catchy but had no discernable meaning. I dismissed songs that were merely catchy riffs, and appreciated narrative songs that spoke to coherent and profound themes. Yet as I have matured as a music listener (if in no other way), I have found myself really enjoying songs whose meanings I can’t decipher—a lot of classic Bob Dylan and the Beatles come to mind. Your music tends to have meaning and message, but where do you stand on this as a songwriter? Do inscrutable lyrics belong in music?

Hrab: There are entire genres and complete catalogs of certain artists where the “words” are essentially nice sounding pitched mouth noises. I love that. There are entire swaths of Yes and Duran Duran that are really cool sounding words put together. I mean, what the hell is a Siberian Khatru? Is The Reflex a lonely child? Really? OK, whatever. . . . Often the guys in the band don’t even know what the songs are about. There are punk and metal acts that pride themselves on the lyrics not only being indecipherable, but unintelligible.

It comes down to using the human voice as a timbral instrument and not necessarily a delivery of “meaning.” That being said, I tend to favor writing songs that have a meaning, and [I] have tried to write nice sounding indecipherable words but somehow my analytic brain won’t let me do that. There is absolutely a point to writing music without words, so conversely there is a point to writing songs with words that are un-understandable. If that’s even a word. . . .

SB: Some musicians, such as Tom Waits, have experimented with non-traditional instruments such as the theremin, pot-and-pan percussion, and so on. How far have you gone in that direction?

Hrab: While recording with the incredible Slau of BeSharp studios, we have experimented a bit with creating interesting sounds through non-traditional ways. We like to manipulate the human voice a lot, and that tends to create some neat otherworldly sounds. The background ghost hum in “Stigmata” from the album Minutiae, and the “Jerrymin” solo on “Hai Yookito ’Ya” from Trebuchet are prime examples of that.

SB: Though you are best known for your musical oeuvre, you have expanded to other areas, including publishing the now-infamous Non-Coloring Book in 2007—which featured drawings of Elvis, the Pope, and Batman in identical poses on the cover. Have you considered expanding into visual media, such as oil painting or performance art?

Hrab: I’ve always dug working in multiple media, and I think I might try to get more into doing some video production. I have a backlog of songs and ideas that just need a commitment of time. In a weird way (that totally sounds pretentious I realize—sorry) I consider most of my performances a weird kind of performance art to begin with. Especially the solo shows. There is a bit of a persona that I adopt to answer audience questions, and I do like the semi-Dada nature of many of my gigs. I hope to work on another book too. It all comes down to time management.

SB: In Terry Zwigoff’s fascinating 1994 documentary film Crumb about legendary underground comix artist Robert Crumb, we learn among other things that Robert is a compulsive masturbator. Are you a fan of documentaries, and if someone were to make a documentary about your life, what are two or three interesting, private facts that the public would learn about you?

Hrab: That’s interesting. I enjoyed masturbating while watching Crumb. Go figure. Anyway. . . I think if someone were to make a documentary of me, folks would be most surprised to learn how lazy and short I am. I think they would also be surprised to see how much of my time is spent alone. That and of course the Crumb masturbation thing. . .

SB: What’s a curious question you have asked a celebrity?

Hrab: I asked Levar Burton what it was like to work with Tim and Eric [of Cartoon Network’s Awesome Show, Great Job!]. This was a question I was very proud of. It took unimaginable amounts of self control to not ask why power from the front array isn’t automatically diverted to the shields in a Red Alert combat situation seeing as that is almost always the primary command directed by the First Officer.

How did you get the idea for this documentary?

After moving from Philadelphia to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, we were astounded by the growing number of ghost tour companies and by their popularity with tourists. Thousands of people flock to the town each weekend during the summer specifically to go on the ghost tours. In addition, the battlefield itself has become one of the most popular places for ghost hunters in America to visit. . . . [W]e wanted to explore this fascination with ghosts.

What in your backgrounds drew you to the subject?

Andy teaches college history and has been interested for many years in the relationship between history, ghost stories, and paranormal investigation. As a teacher with a degree in psychology, I am interested in how ghost stories and folklore can be used in the classroom, the media’s sensationalism of the topic, and the relationship between research in the field of psychology and paranormal investigation. We gathered research over the course of six years with the intent of writing a book, but the project evolved into a documentary.

How long did it take to make?

We completed the bulk of the filming over the course of a summer, taking advantage of our careers as teachers to work on the film full-time. Editing was completed in the fall and early winter, with an average of forty to fifty hours per week. Producing a film is more labor-intensive than we realized, but most of it did not seem like work since it was so enjoyable to delve into such a fascinating topic.

What insights into ghost hunters/investigators did you get from making this film?

Ghost hunters are not “one size fits all.” There are many different approaches to the topic, and groups vary widely in terms of their goals and objectives. We were pleasantly surprised to find a number of groups and individuals who do a very good job of employing a more professional, serious, skeptical, scientific approach. There is a large misconception among the skeptical community that ghost hunters always use equipment (such as EMF meters) to find ghosts. There are a number of researchers who use this equipment to rule out natural causes, such as large electromagnetic fields, to explain the phenomena that homeowners have experienced. These more serious investigators also recognize that most of the things that traditionally have been associated with hauntings can be explained by scientific means. It is also widely understood among this group of researchers that the small percentage of events that remain unexplained do not confirm the existence of ghosts. The largest problem that exists among this part of the community, however, is the lack of a peer-review process and an organized method of sharing data and research.

Do you think that ghosts exist?

Tonya: “Ghosts” are the product of folklore, the convenience of attributing the unexplained to the paranormal, and the innate desire of human beings to believe that part of us lives beyond the grave. I doubt that scientific proof will come in our lifetime and doubt even more wholeheartedly that belief in ghosts will ever go away.
Andy: I believe that things occur that are unexplainable within the current scientific paradigm. I would not be willing to say that these events are definitely caused by ghosts as we culturally define them, although I would not say that this is an impossibility either. I believe it is possible that the “paranormal” might be the result of some natural phenomena that we will eventually understand as our knowledge of science and the universe grows.

What do you plan to do with the film now?

The film has been submitted to a variety of film festivals. However, we recognize that the documentary appeals to a small segment of the population. By not appealing to the more sensational aspects of the topic, we have limited our potential audience. We are selling the film on DVD ourselves and through Amazon.com.

What were the most difficult and interesting aspects of making the film?

We are not filmmakers by trade, so we had to learn a lot of technical information quickly! While filming, we faced unforeseen obstacles and unexpected circumstances, such as conducting interviews in a location with no electricity in complete darkness. When we finished filming, we had close to one hundred hours of tape. Finding the story among all of those hours was an arduous task. The most interesting part of making the documentary was undoubtedly meeting and talking with some of the most thought-provoking, personable, and intelligent people we have ever met.

What has been the reaction by ghost hunters to the film? Did they feel they were portrayed fairly?

We have had the opportunity to privately screen the film several times. More serious researchers have praised the film and its message. Others have criticized its skeptical viewpoint, some of them with a great deal of emotion. We are pleased that reactions to the film have been strong, whether the viewers agree or disagree. When we began the process of planning the documentary, our primary objective was to show a variety of perspectives on the topic. There are plenty of television shows and films that sensationalize the topic. We wanted to begin to demystify ghost hunting.

Did you try to interview the TAPS crew from the TV show Ghost Hunters?

We recognize that their involvement would have undoubtedly helped us to sell the film. However, we didn’t attempt to contact members of TAPS. Most people interested in this topic are very familiar with TAPS and their work. We wanted to expose viewers to additional viewpoints.

What do you think you did or captured with your film that previous documentaries didn’t?

The Other Side: Giving Up the Ghost is the only film we are aware of that attempts to treat the topic in a balanced manner. We felt that the general public should have the opportunity to hear information different from what they typically see on television and in the movies. We have captured the continuum of our society’s fascination with ghosts—from ghost tours and folklore to serious researchers and skeptics. Through the documentary, we also hope to open dialogue among serious researchers to support the improvement of methodology in the field.

Skeptical Briefs: How would you describe the status of skepticism in Peru today?

Manuel Paz y Miño: As in many parts of the world there are some astrologers and psychics in the media, many of whom even have their own telephone hotlines. Reports of weeping icons, UFOs, and miraculous cures are not uncommon. From time to time reports in newspapers and television provide a skeptical point of view, but indeed they are few.

As a humanist and skeptical university teacher I launched the Peruvian Journal of Applied Philosophy in 1994 in order to spread a dynamic and practical philosophy examining social problems from both humanist and skeptical perspectives. Currently we publish not only periodicals and books but also organize speeches.

I was only able to talk and show to my philosophy students videos on a few specific skeptical topics. So it was necessary two years ago to found a skeptical specialized group, the Peruvian Committee for the Research of the Paranormal, Pseudosciences and Irrationality (CIPSI). We currently have about ten members, mostly professionals and students. So far we have launched two issues of our magazine Neo-Skepsis and when I return to Peru there will be a public meeting, a video-forum on UFO phenomenon (which was the topic of the last issue of the magazine).

SB: What are the main paranormal topics of concern to Peruvians?

Alternative medicines are very sought after. There are many Peruvian people who cannot afford the very expensive Western medicine and drugs or who have incurable illnesses. So they are very interested in folk medicine and miraculous cures. There are many religious icons and medicine-men in my country, as in the rest of the world.

Peru has also spawned two home-grown UFO cults, Rama and Alpha & Omega. Rama has an international presence in many Ibero-American countries, and Alpha & Omega is a sort of religious Christian cult that believes Christ is coming again-in a UFO.

SB: What are the main challenges to skepticism in Peru?

I think we need to reach out to more people through mass media. Scientific and skeptical education classes, journals, and books are really only available for people who are able to get a place at the university. Auditoriums are too small for the huge number of people who need such critical thinking education. In order to reach to them we are compiling material for our own video program. But in order to do these things I think it is very important to consolidate a strong skeptical group with a great commitment to its goals. I believe that is possible.

SB: What has been the public’s response to your efforts? Are they receptive?

Scientific discoveries are universal and when people are open to science and reason there is a good reception to scientific skepticism. Of course there are many people who are deceived and fanatical, who think science is mistaken. I encounter both types of people in my classes.

SB: What about the reaction from your students?

Some are receptive, others not so much. Many are religious and strong believers, especially in the case of folk healings and miracle cures. I've had some students who used folk medicine for illnesses and were cured, and it’s hard to explain to them about the placebo effect or that some diseases just naturally get better.

SB: How did you get involved in the skeptical movement?

Well, when I became a religious unbeliever I also rejected any kind of supernatural explanations for reality. Also, when I was a university student I found scientific magazines and periodicals, including Free Inquiry and the Skeptical Inquirer. And of course skeptical programs on television are of great help. CSICOP is our great model and we greatly admire the works of Paul Kurtz, Joe Nickell, James Randi, Kendrick Frazier, Massimo Polidoro and other people who have done so much for the skeptical cause.

SB: Were you brought up in the Roman Catholic Church? If so, how did you reconcile that with your skepticism?

Yes, I brought up as a Catholic. As such, I was compelled to go to religious processions and temples as a child. And in my teens I was an Evangelical. In both cases there is the belief that there exists a supernatural and miraculous force acting on the world. But the more I examined my beliefs the more I doubted that an all-powerful and all-caring God could exist. That realization motivated me to found the Peruvian Areligious Movement, a humanist group. So in my opinion one cannot be skeptical and to be a theist believer at the same time.

SB: But in the United States, and throughout the world, there are many people who feel that they can believe in God and yet are skeptics. Are you concerned, given the influence of Catholicism in Peru, that you might end up making skepticism harder to accept by linking it to humanism?

Well, I would accept them as skeptics, but only up to a certain point. After all, part of theist belief is that some actions we see on Earth are produced by an omniscient, all-powerful God: miracles. If you are a deist [who believes that God made the world yet has no role in current affairs] then you retain your faith but don’t necessarily believe in the supernatural or miracles.

The most important thing is to promote rational thinking in society-and that implies rational criticism of religion as well. So our skepticism is a radical one. When we have skeptic meetings, we won’t discuss religious matters. Most people believe [in religion] - it’s their right, and we must accept that to a certain extent.

SB: And of course there are other paranormal beliefs that have nothing to to with religion: psychics, for example, or UFOs.

That’s another question. But you can connect the beliefs with your own religion. For example, if you are a believer, you can accept or reject UFOs. As I mentioned before, we do have a few Christian/UFO sects in Peru.

SB: There seem to be many mystical sites in Peru-Nazca, Macchu Picchu, Chilca, etc. Why do you think your country has fostered so many?

Well, there is a strong nationalism based on the great and rich past of the Incan and pre-Incan cultures. In order to explain why those sites were built, many gave a paranormal explanation instead of a scientific one. And many Peruvians make lots of money from the mystical tourism and tourists; it is a great business. Also some local and foreign writers have books-some of them bestsellers [e.g., Chariots of the Gods?, by Von Däniken] claiming that those “mystical” sites were created by alien forces.

SB: In some governments the paranormal has influences in high places. Astrologers were in Reagan’s White House, for example, and Indonesian politics is famous for its use of psychics and witch doctors. Has this occurred in Peru?

Not really, as far as I know. In 1996 there was a weeping icon of the Virgin Mary in the port of Callao near Lima. Opponents of the government claimed at the time that it was a strategy to divert the public’s attention from the difficult economic problems. The same claim was made about a UFO case about two years ago.

SB: What are some of the cultural differences in the dissemination of skepticism between the United States and Latin America?

There are not many differences; we use Internet and e-mail a lot. Our Web site is at geocities.com/cipsiperu

and our e-mail is cipsiperu@yahoo.com. Also we like to show special video programs in order to discuss skepticism and of course we publish our magazine and give public speeches. And we hope to publish our first skeptical book in the next few months. But of course our group is in an undeveloped country and we struggle with many economic restrictions. For instance, I spent five months’ university salary and borrowed from a relative in order to come visit the Center for Inquiry after years of invitations.

SB: What is the future of skepticism in Latin America and Peru?

I think it is quite positive because now there are more learned and educated people than before who understand the scientific method. But if there were a better policy for public and private education our work will not be so diffi- cult. We, with some other Latin American skeptics, hope to have our own unified Web page soon.

Kimberly Drake is a veteran of several radio and television stations and currently is an investigative reporter on KCNC-TV, the CBS affiliate in Denver. She not only covers the latest scandals, villains, and shenanigans, but also the occasional story on Virgin Mary statues that cry, cattle mutilations by aliens, and mysterious black helicopters. She has been a friend of the skeptical movement for years. I had an opportunity to interview her recently on the ways that a skeptic can influence television coverage.

CFH: Kimberly, many of us who pride ourselves on a rational approach to life are appalled by the increasing fascination the media have with the paranormal. The press and especially television seem to show little critical appraisal of their impact on the American public. They are just as likely to report an alien abduction as a school board meeting. How can we skeptics effectively make changes in the media?

KD: First suggestion . . . make sure you (the skeptic) understand what you are objecting to. Is it a nationally syndicated “entertainment” program, or is it something on a local news program? Frequently people confuse the two, making sweeping judgments about “the evil media.”

For example, The X-Files or Unsolved Mysteries, both programs that have an aura of scientific credibility that may confuse viewers, are nationally produced programs. The local station you are watching has practically no control over these shows. It certainly has no control over content. If you want to complain locally, complain directly to the general manager of the station, but this will probably have little effect on the programming. You would be better off writing a letter directly to the head of the national network that produces these shows. Call the local station to find what address you should write to in New York.

If, instead, your gripe is about something locally produced, for instance, a piece on black helicopters, ghosts, or the paranormal, you should contact the local station. However, you are wasting your time unless you do this correctly. Do not, I repeat, do not simply make a phone call to the local newsroom. Having worked in newsrooms in TV stations and radio stations for years, I can tell you this is a waste of time. I liken it to complaining to the school janitor about a budgetary decision the school board has made. Complain to the people who make the decisions. In a newsroom, the people who answer the phones are not the people who make decisions. You will most likely end up whining to some underpaid, overworked producer, writer, assignment desk person, or reporter. While these people may agree with you that the piece on (fill in the blank) was a bunch of hogwash, they aren’t in decision-making positions for the most part. The people to complain to are the news director and the general manager of the TV station. The general manager is really the top dog.

It is also a mistake to assume that your phone call, complaint, ideas will be passed on to those in decision-making capacities. You are just one more phone call amidst phone calls from people wanting to know when I Love Lucy reruns are coming on, people complaining about their landlord, people who say electromagnetic radiation is giving them headaches, people complaining about their custody settlements, people who see the Virgin Mary in the stain from their water pipes, people upset that the anchor woman has cut her hair, and people who want to know if today is Tuesday. You would be astounded at the number of phone calls that come into a TV station. It is a rare station that has a place to send people with legitimate programming gripes.

CFH: Is a phone call to the news director or general manager the best way to get attention or is a letter better?

KD: Your best bet is to put your thoughts down on paper. No, it won’t take that long. No, it won’t be ignored. Yes, it is worth your time. You can say the same thing on paper that you would be saying on the phone, but it will carry more weight. Make your argument that not all arguments have equal weight. Make your argument that by covering the psychics, the station is legitimizing outlandish, irrational thinking. Make your argument that the TV news has a duty to intelligently cover the news, a duty to not give credence to the silly and ridiculous, a duty to inform people so they can make intelligent decisions, not be confused by the fads of the day. Whatever. And, if you belong to a skeptics group, you should have several people in the organization write. Be organized. Be direct. Don't simply complain to one another. Have a group of people who are the media watchers.

I can tell you that your letter will carry much more weight and have a greater influence than all the moaning and groaning you do to one another.

Most people in the media are reasonably intelligent. Granted, they have different concerns than you do. It is a business. It is not a university. We are in business to make money, but most people in the media believe that we should be accurate and tell the truth. Keep in mind that we have unbelievably short deadlines. It is unrealistic to think that a news station or a reporter will have more than a few hours to do any story. You can help them do a better job by providing information about a subject you believe is not being well covered. Always remember that whatever you offer needs to be easy to absorb.

CFH: Suppose that with all our complaining to the news director or general manager we can’t stop the local TV station from doing stories on the paranormal, are we at a dead end?

KD: No. If you can’t convince the local station to stop doing stories about therapeutic touch, crystals, psychics, ghosts, and herbalists, then provide a counter viewpoint. Figure out who in your group can be available to offer another perspective. It should be somebody who is good on camera, witty, and succinct. It should not be someone humorless and monotonous. You want people to think about your alternate viewpoint, not be turned off by what a bunch of bores skeptics are. Even if you cannot convince a station to stop doing fringe stories, you can appeal to their sense of equal coverage — that being a good reporter requires giving the other side of the story. This argument will win over just about any news director or reporter.

It is of course always a good idea to make friends with some sympathetic reporters in each station. They can let you know if the station is about to do a five-part series on holistic healing or people abducted by aliens. While you might not be able to prevent this series from airing, you can make sure it has some rational thought in it.

Keep in mind that, as obvious as you believe your viewpoint is, chances are the people deciding what gets covered have not thought of your viewpoint. Chances are they see no harm in doing stories on ghosts or UFOs or iridology. They most likely look at it as something unusual and interesting. Don't throw your hands up and complain to your fellow skeptic. You're preaching to the converted. And if you do get up the gumption to do something about what you don’t like, make sure you direct your complaint to the right person, or you are wasting your breath. News directors and general managers care deeply about public perception. And you are part of the public.

CFH: Kimberly, I think it would help if the viewers understood how stations decide to cover particular stories and how assignments are made on a daily basis.

KD: There is a morning meeting, where the producers and managers sit around and discuss what they think should be covered during the day. Keep in mind this always changes. News is a fluid business, and if there is a four alarm fire and five people die, the story on baby giraffes born at the zoo will never see the light of day.

Ideas come from a variety of sources: the newspaper, press releases sent to the station, ideas from reporters and producers, and, of course, there is breaking news that often dictates what gets covered. So, after about half an hour to an hour of discussion, reporters are assigned stories, and photographers are paired with them. Stories that require less note-taking may only be assigned a photographer.

The assignment manager writes who is doing what on a giant board and, as reporters come in, they are given their assignments. Reporters then go off and begin making phone calls to set up interviews so they can go out with a photographer to shoot their story.

Reporters at the station where I work are expected to develop their own stories as often as possible and are expected to break stories. We “work the phones"; in other words, we talk to cops, politicians, sources to see what’s going on that might end up being newsworthy.

CFH: In what way can you as a reporter control the final product that we see on the evening news?

KD: Individual reporters may or may not have a lot of control over what they cover. It depends entirely on the newsroom, or sometimes how much respect the individual reporter has in the newsroom.

If it is a breaking news story and you are the one on the scene, usually you have a lot of control. Unless you work in a newsroom with an egomaniacal news director, it is assumed that you have the best handle on the situation. But, that’s not to say you won’t be overruled by an assignment manager, executive producer, assistant news director, or news director.

If we are talking about a daily story you have been assigned, you have a lot of control over whom you talk to, how much time you give people in your piece, what pieces of information are included. And if you really think it’s a moronic idea, you may be allowed to do something else, provided you have a better story up your sleeve.

If it’s a story you have come up with, you have the most control. You know the subject and the story. You write it, you voice it, you have say in how it’s edited. It’s your baby.

If it’s a series piece and you've been assigned it, you are pretty much expected to produce what the news director or manager who assigned it to you wants. You will have some say in whom you end up interviewing and, of course, you write it, but the people who assigned it to you usually have pretty definite ideas of how they want it to look and be promoted. At my station, for instance, the promotions manager is involved in series meetings and has a lot of say in whether something is worth doing, based on whether he believes it is “promotable.” In other words, can he attract viewers with the piece. TV is a business and you should never forget it. Those who do are out of jobs. If people really wanted PBS, everybody would be doing shows on the secret life of crayfish.

CFH: So, what are the essential criteria for determining the news value of a story?

KD: Well, I could write a book on this one . . . but it’s common sense. Is it interesting? Is it unusual? Is it new? Is it something that affects a lot of people? Is it something out of the ordinary? Is it something people need to know about? Is it something people will watch? Will it touch people, make them happy, sad, mad, whatever?

Most people see TV news as both entertainment and news. The people who are giving you the news need to be engaging, yet credible. The stories need to be well-told, yet accurate. It’s a peculiar business because presentation is an important part of the equation. Yet, faking news, lying, being sloppy are absolutely not acceptable. That’s why when it happens — and like any business, we have some bad apples — it receives so much attention. Think about it, we are one of the few businesses where we cover, we report . . . we reveal our weaknesses and expose them.

CFH: Why cover the occult or paranormal at all?

KD: At our station it hardly ever happens. I can tell you, I don’t say, “Hey, let’s go do a story on devil worship today.” But to think there aren’t some kids who are into that is to ignore the truth. But, we would only do that kind of thing if there was a news peg. For instance, let’s say several kids at a high school had killed themselves and the police said that in all the deaths, there was evidence that the kids were involved in devil worship. The public has a right to know this, and parents need to know because it might be something their children might be getting mixed up in.

Just going out and doing a story on the occult or the paranormal without any news peg doesn't happen too often where I work. If the decision was made to do it, my hunch would be that my bosses would assume that people might be interested in it, want to know more about it, and, therefore, it might pull in viewers. People, for better or worse, are often interested in the macabre and bizarre. Thus the success of Stephen King, Anne Rice, etc.

CFH: So, if you are assigned to do a story on the paranormal, what do you see as your obligations?

KD: To be accurate. To make as much effort within the time constraints to tell a complete story. To get as many different, legitimate viewpoints in as possible. To help people get enough information to make good, intelligent decisions about the important issues in their lives. To be fair. To work hard at collecting information, making every effort within time constraints to get correct information. To write clearly. It would take a lot more time to answer this one well.

CFH: How much do you think the average person believes of what he sees on TV?

KD: I'm not sure I understand the question. I would assume that if I do a story on a bill before the legislature, and I talk to two different legislators with different viewpoints, that people know this is an issue where people have different ideas. People can listen and decide which viewpoint they agree with. If I do a story on a crime, I talk to neighbors, the police, anybody I can get my hands on, and try to tell what happened. Stories like this change, because the police learn more as an investigation goes on. So I tell what is known at the moment. I assume people know that. I believe people are skeptical of some of the viewpoints presented. I believe that viewers believe I am making a good effort to get accurate information.