The easiest thing in the world for a TV producer is to make a show that "raises questions" and suggests maybe the supernatural is real. It's much harder to make a useful show.
The last time NOVA did something like this they ended up being sued by Bud Hopkins and lost. Served them right too. They were way too harsh on him and his patients. IIRC I think they claimed he'd said things he had never uttered (as if his views weren't already more than enough to work with). He was actually very open to criticism and willing to work with us on my BBC film. I, in turn, was completely open with him about our skeptical and science-based exploration of his field: alien abductions.
I hope things have not now swung too far the other way at NOVA.
Mick West should not accept anything said to him at face value. Ever. Documentary-making is infested with charming researchers, producers, and executives who will say anything to gain co-operation then do the complete opposite of what they've promised. It can be hard though when there isn't enough time for every contribution filmed and some interviews get reduced to almost nothing or get squeezed out entirely. That's when the producer should call the interviewee and apologise. They rarely do.
I would ask if Mick West has seen the final edited version of the NOVA show. I am aware of colleagues who were interviewed for some segment (related to climate change) and felt the filming was fair and reasonable; only to see the final edited cut and find that what was shown was anything but balanced and reasonable. Of course you just don't know until you see what is aired.
i see this sort of thing occasionally on otherwise reputable shows such as CBS Sunday Morning. The UFO segment on May 16, 2021 while purporting to give a fair look, actually promotes the worst kind of UFOlogy, thus giving UFO hunters (akin to Bigfoot Hunters) an aura of respectability.
The last time NOVA did something like this they ended up being sued by Bud Hopkins and lost. Served them right too. They were way too harsh on him and his patients. IIRC I think they claimed he'd said things he had never uttered (as if his views weren't already more than enough to work with). He was actually very open to criticism and willing to work with us on my BBC film. I, in turn, was completely open with him about our skeptical and science-based exploration of his field: alien abductions.
I hope things have not now swung too far the other way at NOVA.
Mick West should not accept anything said to him at face value. Ever. Documentary-making is infested with charming researchers, producers, and executives who will say anything to gain co-operation then do the complete opposite of what they've promised. It can be hard though when there isn't enough time for every contribution filmed and some interviews get reduced to almost nothing or get squeezed out entirely. That's when the producer should call the interviewee and apologise. They rarely do.
I would ask if Mick West has seen the final edited version of the NOVA show. I am aware of colleagues who were interviewed for some segment (related to climate change) and felt the filming was fair and reasonable; only to see the final edited cut and find that what was shown was anything but balanced and reasonable. Of course you just don't know until you see what is aired.
I don't know. They sent me a link to a screener so I know one's available.
Yes, I was sceptical when I saw Mick’s ‘tweet’. Made me wonder whether Mick was taking the Nick Pope route
i see this sort of thing occasionally on otherwise reputable shows such as CBS Sunday Morning. The UFO segment on May 16, 2021 while purporting to give a fair look, actually promotes the worst kind of UFOlogy, thus giving UFO hunters (akin to Bigfoot Hunters) an aura of respectability.