It's a crank website but can it be true?

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:08:17 +0000

Personally, if we are to have an apocalypse any time soon, I would prefer this apocalypse to be a zombie apocalypse, highly unlikely, of course, but look at it this way..
If it's a zombie apocalypse, you have more chances of running into a doomsayer, as a zombie and putting them out of your misery without getting in trouble.

There's always an upside to a zombie apocalypse.

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:16:19 +0000

My original statement about a "welcome sign" encompassed rather more than I intended. I agree entirely with your views about government censorship of broadcast and published media. But a clear disclaimer before each of these so-called documentaries would not be a bad thing.

I am also against the sort of interference which manifests itself as the "nanny state". But if the perceived intellectual capability of the population in general requires that cartons of eggs should carry the warning "This product contains egg" and Superman outfits should carry the warning "This costume does not enable the wearer to fly", a warning that "Claims of doomsday are entirely unsupported by scientific evidence" would not come entirely amiss. Having found a link to a streamed video of the episode of Wife Swap, I though I might as well watch it, and the declaration by the family preparing for 2012 that they need to be ready at all times because they might have to fight off zombies really leaves one shaking one's head in disbelief and pity.

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:00:59 +0000

I just took it as a "given" that the claim about the government ordering them to not air the episode was more woo woo government conspiracy lies, especially considering the source.
The government is not going to concern themselves with such nonsense, and as Bikenbeer said, this came from a crank website.
I meant that if Disney/ABC actually made an announcement that they wouldn't air fear generating programming, that would be a good thing.

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:30:59 +0000

What about someone shouting "Fire" not erroneously but with malice aforethought. Would they be subject to no sanction?

If someone perpetrates some manner of fraud that demonstrably causes harm, of course that person should be held accountable via relevant channels, be they civil or criminal. But I wasn't talking about sanction (and neither were you). I was talking about censorship.

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:14:44 +0000

What about someone shouting "Fire" not erroneously but with malice aforethought. Would they be subject to no sanction?

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:24:48 +0000

But at what point does freedom of speech become freedom to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre?

Hopefully when there's actually a fire.

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:43:18 +0000

There's even information about the damn episode on the ABC Website for the show. It may have been DELAYED for the sake of "Maybe this is a stupid idea", but you have to remember these companies… yeah. They don't really care about that.

God, that episode just pisses me off after reading the damn summary of it. How… argh. ARGH.

"But it's not all doom and gloom; they cheerfully point out they've taken advantage of interest free credit till 2012 to furnish their home, as there will be no one around to collect."

ABC and Disney need to die. Just. Die.

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:27:59 +0000

You're expected to know the difference between the truth and lies. Freedom of Speech annoys me, I'll admit. Freedom of the Press annoys me more, however.

Just gotta deal with it.

Also, um… why pwn an episode with a 2012 reference when the entire movie based off it was allowed through? Yeah, think about that.

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:49:54 +0000

But at what point does freedom of speech become freedom to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre?

If the options are between someone erroneously shouting "Fire" and men with guns gagging everyone as they come through the door, I'm inclined to select the former, even at the cost of potential pandemonium. Even if I didn't care about freedom of speech, I think a government filter on woo-centered publications and broadcasts would be a colossal backfire.

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 10:49:10 +0000

but I strongly disagree that a "government entity" filtering anything from publication or broadcast is a "welcome sign."

But at what point does freedom of speech become freedom to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre?

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:16:15 +0000

Googling the quote that begins with "…the subject family’s beliefs…" produces one hit: the crank site. There is an option to repeat the search with duplicate hits included, and it's almost exclusively links to that very website and its blog, with one exception from another board that just repeats it. I suspect it is, like most content from that particular source, fabricated. Of course, they can always claim it's original material, insider information, etc., so anybody who wants to believe it likely can do so with impunity.

Just before the portion you quoted, the author claims: "After a bit of research and with some help from my 2012 Facebook group friends, I eventually learned the following:……"

Smells like woo.

…but if this is correct, it's a very welcome sign.

I know as well as anyone how harmful these crackpots can be, but I strongly disagree that a "government entity" filtering anything from publication or broadcast is a "welcome sign." I'd rather deal constantly with debunking nonsense over a state that appoints itself the final arbiter of what information is fit for public consumption. Granted, that happens to some extent anyway, just from the sheer nature of an establishment such as government. From the top down, however, a truth can be censored as easily as a lie.

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:00:54 +0000

Since Disney wants to keep their image squeaky clean, it would be good PR for them to announce that they don't support fear based programming, even though they do. In the minds of the public in general, the Hysteria Channel isn't associated with Disney/ABC. Most people aren't aware that they own a large chunk of it.

It would sure be a big step in the right direction if they actually did stop airing the 2012 nonsense, though.

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:13:12 +0000

As official sounding as that announcement is, I can't square it with Disney's partial ownership of A&E, which owns the History Channel. Now, perhaps the ownership is too far removed for this policy to flow down, but still…

Re: It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:45:32 +0000

Probably the only truth in that statement is that Disney will not endorse nor give credence to the rumors that surround 2012 and honestly, that's a step that most Television broadcasters and stations are willing to do or, rather, not to do.

I can believe that the writer of the TV show had written this script, but was denied by ABC and/or Disney, but I honestly can't believe that a "government entity" forced them to jerk it from the schedule, that part just sounds like more conspiracy theorist bullshit.

P.S.

There are no other articles to give merit to this claim, none that I could find anyway.

It's a crank website but can it be true?

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:57:31 +0000

I came across this article on a doomsday website which claims that an episode of Wife Swap was pulled from the schedules at the last minute because one of the families involved was going ahead with survival plans for 2012 and the broadcasters decided that viewers might become alarmed. These are the two most relevant paragraphs:

Officially ABC and Disney canceled the episode stating that they do not endorse nor give and credence to the potential cataclysmic events associated with the belief in 2012, and they will not air anything that may show them to endorse any fear based materials. If that was truly the case, then why did they produce the show in the first place?

Unofficially and according to a ABC affiliate representative, the show was reviewed by a 'government entity' that ordered the episode to be removed form all publications in the interest of national security. The statement went on to say, “the subject family’s beliefs ran very deep. They were making real plans for survival and were to disclose many of the theories pertaining to 2012. The show was deemed to be a national interest threat and could cause a potential global panic”. The statement went on to say that, “all-future television shows pertaining to 2012 are now subject to approval. The airing of existing and future shows and documentaries, must include an expert scientific disclaimer of impossibility and must be classified as fiction or fantasy”.

OK, it's a crank website where truth is normally as rare as hen's teeth, but if this is correct, it's a very welcome sign. Has anybody heard about this or is there any way of finding out whether this is true? I believe the show was in fact broadcast because it is available as a streamed video. Presumably the 'government entity' must have overlooked this. OK, so that part of the story was a lie (surprise surprise) but is the whole story an invention about those nasty government people exercising censorship?