Situation No-Win
I've worked a lot of strange shows, and in the course of doing so I've talked to a lot of strange people. Guys who have drilled holes in their skull, BASE jumpers who look for specifically dangerous takeoff points, folks who think the CIA is bugging them through their teeth--when we all know that's the NSA. There have been some nice folks, too, but the nice to strange ratio looks a lot like your odds of winning the lottery.
In the course of talking to these people, you try to shut off the judgement center of your brain--or in my case, the whole thing. You dutifully write down whatever it is they say:
"Uh-huh...uh-huh...Absolutely...That sounds like a lot to take in...Absolutely..."
And when you hang up, you can let all the judgement vent. It's better this way. I call it the Art Bell approach.
As the years have gone on, it has become more difficult to hold on to the Art Bell approach. Call it a lack of patience, call it a lack of respect for the job. You begin to slip:
"Uh-huh...yeah...Attacked by what?...No, it sounds like you definitely have something there...What do I think it is?...Chemical imbalance, maybe..."
The question I'm getting a lot these days is, "Are you a believer?"
"Believer" encompasses belief in all of the various paranormal occurences, such as ghosts, electronic voice phenomena, and possession. The people who ask this invariably do believe in ghosts and their asking the question is their litmus test of your tolerance.
Since my slips have started, I respond differently than I used to. It used to be a slow nod with a kicker of how we all have to be open-minded to the things we can't see. Now I have a new answer.
Yes, I am a believer. I believe sincerely that the people who hold onto these notions are lunatic, batshit crazy. And I'm beginning to resent the question.
The question "Do you believe in ghosts?" suggests that there are two equally rational arguments to be made and that you can fall on one side or the other and still be considered perfectly reasonable. This is simply not true. One side has a obligation to prove the existence of ghosts and has failed for, oh, the entirety of human history to do so. The other side just has to wait for the proof.
I will be meeting a lot more believers in the coming months and I expect to get the question a lot more frequently. I'll have to spackle over my cynicism for a while, and won't be so rude as to insult anybody, but I refuse to go back to the nod-and-smile.
It's my job to find the stories that make the best television, not to reinforce anyone's delusions in the process. Just because someone is sure that Lizzie Borden is trying to talk to them through the static on their radio doesn't mean that I have to swallow it, too.
This may sound harsh, but I don't mean it to be. I'm just tired of pretending that all opinions are equally credible, and not just in this respect. Do we really need to debate evolution and creationism on the same playing field? Holocaust revisionism?
Liberals are rightfully known for their tolerance, but there has to be a limit. Sometimes, just being willing to argue a point lends credence to unreasonable opposition. We have to stop falling for this.
I'm starting right now.
In the course of talking to these people, you try to shut off the judgement center of your brain--or in my case, the whole thing. You dutifully write down whatever it is they say:
"Uh-huh...uh-huh...Absolutely...That sounds like a lot to take in...Absolutely..."
And when you hang up, you can let all the judgement vent. It's better this way. I call it the Art Bell approach.
As the years have gone on, it has become more difficult to hold on to the Art Bell approach. Call it a lack of patience, call it a lack of respect for the job. You begin to slip:
"Uh-huh...yeah...Attacked by what?...No, it sounds like you definitely have something there...What do I think it is?...Chemical imbalance, maybe..."
The question I'm getting a lot these days is, "Are you a believer?"
"Believer" encompasses belief in all of the various paranormal occurences, such as ghosts, electronic voice phenomena, and possession. The people who ask this invariably do believe in ghosts and their asking the question is their litmus test of your tolerance.
Since my slips have started, I respond differently than I used to. It used to be a slow nod with a kicker of how we all have to be open-minded to the things we can't see. Now I have a new answer.
Yes, I am a believer. I believe sincerely that the people who hold onto these notions are lunatic, batshit crazy. And I'm beginning to resent the question.
The question "Do you believe in ghosts?" suggests that there are two equally rational arguments to be made and that you can fall on one side or the other and still be considered perfectly reasonable. This is simply not true. One side has a obligation to prove the existence of ghosts and has failed for, oh, the entirety of human history to do so. The other side just has to wait for the proof.
I will be meeting a lot more believers in the coming months and I expect to get the question a lot more frequently. I'll have to spackle over my cynicism for a while, and won't be so rude as to insult anybody, but I refuse to go back to the nod-and-smile.
It's my job to find the stories that make the best television, not to reinforce anyone's delusions in the process. Just because someone is sure that Lizzie Borden is trying to talk to them through the static on their radio doesn't mean that I have to swallow it, too.
This may sound harsh, but I don't mean it to be. I'm just tired of pretending that all opinions are equally credible, and not just in this respect. Do we really need to debate evolution and creationism on the same playing field? Holocaust revisionism?
Liberals are rightfully known for their tolerance, but there has to be a limit. Sometimes, just being willing to argue a point lends credence to unreasonable opposition. We have to stop falling for this.
I'm starting right now.
posted by Matthew at 9:45 AM
<< Home