>>> Well, local.aaca.org ought to know. And yet, I cannot help but wonder, >>> what does Wikipedia have to say on the subject? >> Exactly the same thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KITT (probably >> written by the same person) > > And they probably cited each other as the primary source. And now they > will, no doubt, include our message board as corroborating the first > source. > > Isn't a system free of any regulation grand?
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/tvbarn2/message/7663 MILLIONAIRE Syndicated Host Wed Apr 3, 2002 11:08 pm tomalhe Re: [tvbarn2] MILLIONAIRE Syndicated Host To answer a few questions raised during the whole Dick Clark thing.... >I'm confused. You're not the only one. > > >Who broke the story? > >> The link posted on TVBARN points to ZENTERTAINMENT's announcement of > >Dick Clark, but ZENTERTAINMENT says it's TVBARN who announced the > >choice of Dick Clark. That, my friends, is a circular link. That was the point. It was intentionally sloppy circular linking by the same person on both sites. Thus making sure the story had NO PROOF whatsoever. Within an hour of posting it at both sites, I received an email from a colleague, who said they almost believed, it, but noticed my name was on both stories, and thought "aha April 1." >> Could ZENTERTAINMENT (via Mr. Heald) have made >the mistake of not > giving credit to TVgameshows.net? Nope. TVgameshows.net received an email from someone who'd received an email from someone who'd received word about a fax -- which is somewhere between three and five hours of the entirely bogus story being online before it was printed as fact, along with several opinions reported as facts. I wrote TVgameshows.net asking where they got the story from, and was told there was no way in hell was the story from TVBarn.com or Zentertainment.com TVgameshows.net was the only place that had this exclusive story. After the sources were challenged, the story changed at TVgameshows.net in two ways: the fax was mentioned for the first time, and ZEN was listed as "another site" that claimed to have broken the story. The site who swore up and down that I was not his source, now inadvertently claimed I was his source. But still he didn't check. He didn't look at either site. He didn't get his story from either site. if he had, he would have given full credit to either site. The problem remained. I knew I was joking, but was TVgameshows.net? The site had run a few years worth of incredibly hokey April Fools pages. Not stories, PAGES. Really lame lame stuff. Like Bob Barker being added to Mount Rushmore, or Arlene Frances' fashions now being provided by Wal*Mart. The problem was TVgameshows.net has never been all that funny. So at this point, either TVgameshows.net had learned to write satire all of a sudden, or, without calling Miss Cleo, I had predicted the future. Dick Clark was ACTUALLY going to host "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire." Only after Dick Clark's spokespeople and Disney / Buena Vista spokespeople denied there were any facts to the story, when Zap2it.com actually DID research things, was it researched that the infamous fax TVgameshows.net received was DRUMROLL PLEASE ... my story at Zentertainment.com. Now I write funny stuff at TVBarn. I write stuff funny at ZEN. There's a difference. At Zen, I make a lot of dry bland press release information into an entertaining read. At Zen, 100% of my work is based on heavily researched and documents stories -- mostly from reading 10-20 newspapers mostly industry trades, and major TV news columnists before going to bed, so I can get up and do my real paying work. For the most part, I don't review stuff for Zen.com so none of my work there is opinion and I ALWAYS credit my sources. You read a list of 2-10 names at the bottom of my TV history column for TVBarn as well. I have no smoky anonymous sources. No insider info from production companies, no leaked info, that I shouldn't reveal. Frankly, I do have several friends working on several TV shows in various parts of the industry. Aside from a rare documented exception, I don't pump my friends for info. Yes, I knew ______ was leaving _______. These people had actually called me to tell me. ________ told me he was working on a new show about _____. Blank told me there would be an addition season of ______. But I was sworn to secrecy. And when it made the newspapers, it was on the producers timetable. So when you have a not one but two items that come from the same writer that list no real proof, whatsoever, people put together that 2 + 2 = 5. >That site says that it got > confirmation early this morning, >and it doesn't mention getting the > news from any other site. > >Credit where credit is due? If TVgameshows.net had asked to see the fax, had asked where the fax came from, and actually bothered to determine that it was a source with no proof, on April 1st. there would have been no problems. TVgameshows.net got 4th or 5th-hand gossip from reliable sources that it did not bother to check. It published a story that had no proof, because it was in a rush to be the first site to break the story. As mentioned above, when I did try to break a story for TVBarn, I had not obtained permission to quote the source on the record. I learned my lesson. Even in admitting it got taken, the man behind TVgameshows.net published private emails of mine, without my permission. Further, in his "apology" he did not credit Zap2it.com for direct quotes from Clark's people of Buena Vista's spokesman for their investigation. And he hopes this whole mess has not tarnished MY reputation. My hard earned reputation as a guy who writes funny stuff on the Internet. At times realistic stuff. But when I write, I don't write for dumb people. I assume that people who read "Tom Snyder admits to being most infamous skyjacker in history on new talk show" will get the joke and not ask, "Wow this sounds great! What channel is this talk show on?" I love absurd humor. Here's what's absurd about the story I wrote. Anyone who follows game shows would remember that Dick Clark brought "GREED" to FOX as a cheap rip-off of Millionaire. Most of the gossip at TVgameshows.net has said they want a young guy for the syndicated series. They want to make it more a comedy show like "Weakest Link," maybe Jon Stewart, maybe Dana Carvey. ACCORDING TO ALMOST EVERY RUMOR PUBLISHED BY TVGAMESHOWS.NET, DICK CLARK IS THE LAST PERSON THAT WOULD EVER BE HIRED FOR THE JOB. Go figure. I'm being blamed for someone else's bad journalism because I don't put smiley faces at the ends of sentences. Or say when I'm joking. I'm the bad guy because I think that if you're a subscriber or reader of TVBarn you probably have cultivated tastes, or the assume you're checking out the latest snarky buzz at Sean Jordan's ZEN that you're hip to the jive. And I fooled people on April Fools' Day. And the website that got fooled, not only screwed up, it screwed up several times ruining its own reputation. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Like TV only smarter. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
