Ardy Sixkiller Clarke Show

[Gene Steinberg]

The real problem is that far too many paranormal shows take the "wow listen to this!" approach and never ask appropriate questions of anyone, even when a guest is being overtly deceptive. Unfortunate, but that's the way things are.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

We will always ask the questions, but some were concerned that we didn't ask hard enough questions. You can't win with this sort of thing.

I think the sign of a good program host is the ability to measure your guest and fast-pitch or lob the questions appropriately. Take, for instance, Steven Colbert when he interviews political guests. I've seen him get into shouting matches with interviewees who, clearly, were able to verbally argue. On the other hand he's had less-confrontational interviews with people clearly not into the spotlight even if he doesn't agree with what they're saying.

There are degrees of confrontation, and knowing the balance between asking hard questions while respecting your guest's level of tolerance to criticism, both makes for a more entertaining interview by the hosts. As I said in this post earlier, Six-Killer Clark is more of a story teller. If you're looking for evidence and documentation of eye-witness accounts, you're not going to find it in her book. It wouldn't have done any good to call her out on some of her claims, or aggressively argue with her about the importance of revealing her sources. You would have insulted her and probably caused her to discontinue the interview.

However someone like Bill Knell, for instance, or Steven Bassett...individuals used to confrontation and attempting to defend un-defendable positions...should be put on the spot. Listeners who cannot understand the difference between individual guests and stances taken by the host to interview those guests effectively can moan about it all they wish, but ultimately they need to understand the reasons behind the differences.

My two pennies.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I agree: We try to gauge the lay of the land. In Ms. Clark's case, we wanted to put the limits on the table, that she's a story teller not an investigator, and then we had a good time with her.

 

[LeBombette]

I think y'all do that quite well...it was just my opinion that you were a little tough on Ms. Clark...notice I said "little". My original post was really meant for some of the previous comments that questioned her motives and not a criticism of the show itself. Like Jeff said the listeners should be able to judge that some guests require more confrontation than others and as the posts here show, quite a few folks thought you weren't tough enough...go figure. As it is, the Paracast is the only paranormal show I listen to because you do it right.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Second-guessed, vilified and even pooh-pooed...I only said I was a "bit" upset, pretty sure there was no vilifying going on there, but I apologize if it came off that way. As I mentioned it was one of my favorite shows and I was only a little bothered by your track of questioning. At the time of the show I was not a member of the forums and I'm just now learning my way around them and that they can be akin to a minefield. I've been listening to the Paracast for over a year now and YOU GUYS are the only such show I listen to because you do a great job!
Unfortunately, my post looks like a rant (one of the joys of discussing things on the internet is loss of context), but that wasn't my intent. I was actually posting after reading some of the dismissive comments people posted that seemed to question her motives and stated they disliked the show - I didn't "quote" any of those specific comments because there were too many. You guys do have the impossible job and you shouldn't try to be all things to everyone - just keep truckin' and doing what you're doing and I for one will keep listening.

No offense intended to you personally, we heard it from both sides re: the Ardy episode and I was simply pointing out that it doesn't matter how we handle each particular guest, someone won't be happy for some particular reason or another..

 

[LeBombette]

No offense intended to you personally, we heard it from both sides re: the Ardy episode and I was simply pointing out that it doesn't matter how we handle each particular guest, someone won't be happy for some particular reason or another..

No worries...I'm always happy to listen to the Paracast, even when I don't always agree with you or the guests. I'm a museum educator at a Civil War site in Tennessee...boy, do I know that you can't make all SIDES happy!

 

[Burnt State]

Second-guessed and vilified if we try and get as much documentation and proof as we can— chastised, dissed and pooh-pooed if we don't ask the hard questions... it's difficult being all things for all peeps, but imo we manage to walk that line pretty effectively.

When there's excellent documentation no one criticizes. The issue of the hard questions is more about consistency and the occasional guests who get a pass on having to produce serious proof, but that's been there since the beginning of the show.

Sometimes you have on friends, colleagues etc. and, understandably, they don't always get grilled. Sometimes it's a function of who the guest is. No one really is going to challenge Vallee, Hopkins or Jerry Clark. When you have a folklorist on like Sixkiller it's a different type of show. There's a very diverse audience that listens to this show and you can't cater to us all. I think you do a really good job when you are debating issues critically and you have provided an exceptional historical look at Ufology.