ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
Bell didn't have to call his show anything, but a show. That's what it was. That's what it is under Noory. That's what the Paracast is and that's what Dark Matters is. However people want to run a show is how a show is run.
It's the responsibility of a listener, reader and/or viewer of media to process the information they consume from a show (even inaccurate information is still information). They can choose to vet that information for its believability, they can choose not to care, or they can choose to accept everything to which they're exposed. The first two types of people are normal, adult human beings. The last group are the ones who are sometimes more open to the idea of killing themselves with corn-syrup beverages. No matter how much a host or a producer of a show vet information before its release, they have no control over how that information is processed once it's live.
Art Bell didn't invent stupid people, nor did he invent catering to the lowest common denominator.
That said, there's no real reason to believe that Art, himself, didn't believe what he was being told in those cases. Art Bell isn't a journalist, he was the host of a paranormal themed talk-show that aired on AM radio at midnight. Anyone tuning into something like that for "news" has probably got one foot in the Nikes, already. Regardless, if Bell believed his guests, he believed his guests. People don't make a choice to believe things. There is a choice that can be made regarding whether or not one wishes to vet information they are given; but, if one already believes what they've been told (a somewhat psychologically hardwired condition, depending), then the notion of vetting might not even cross their mind. As Bell had no ethical or professional responsibility to deliver truth to the masses, he had no ethical or professional responsibility to override his instinct to believe something that he was told that validated some of his other ideas and beliefs.
Placing any blame on Bell, Streiber, or any of the other goofballs mentioned in the article is silly. A decent number of adults murdered themselves because they believed in something. Art Bell didn't tell them to believe that something. It's not Art Bell's responsibility to tell people what to believe -- nor is it Don Ecker's. Those adult people believed something because that's how their brains worked. Nobody could have walked into that house, laid down some science, and ended a bad time.
It's human nature to believe information that validates those things in which one already believes. There are many, many published papers on the phenomenon. Even if Bell had exposed the truth, those who are compelled to believe would find a way to believe. Art Bell would just become part of a "them," who work to cause harm to or mislead the "us." It's a very difficult thing to do, in some cases, to override the part of the brain that wants to believe information that vindicates a preexisting bias. It's not a very common practice. Rarer is the practice of taking it a step further and seeking out and objectively processing further information from non-biased or strictly fact-based sources that disagrees with that bias. If people aren't murdering themselves over UFO comets, they're murdering themselves over Jesus, Allah, and a host of other goofy sh*t. Belief is a powerful thing. It's part of the collective human experience.
You've all unknowingly put nuts on the air at one time or another, because you believed what was being said or just thought it sounded interesting. It's really not a big deal.
It's the responsibility of a listener, reader and/or viewer of media to process the information they consume from a show (even inaccurate information is still information). They can choose to vet that information for its believability, they can choose not to care, or they can choose to accept everything to which they're exposed. The first two types of people are normal, adult human beings. The last group are the ones who are sometimes more open to the idea of killing themselves with corn-syrup beverages. No matter how much a host or a producer of a show vet information before its release, they have no control over how that information is processed once it's live.
Art Bell didn't invent stupid people, nor did he invent catering to the lowest common denominator.
That said, there's no real reason to believe that Art, himself, didn't believe what he was being told in those cases. Art Bell isn't a journalist, he was the host of a paranormal themed talk-show that aired on AM radio at midnight. Anyone tuning into something like that for "news" has probably got one foot in the Nikes, already. Regardless, if Bell believed his guests, he believed his guests. People don't make a choice to believe things. There is a choice that can be made regarding whether or not one wishes to vet information they are given; but, if one already believes what they've been told (a somewhat psychologically hardwired condition, depending), then the notion of vetting might not even cross their mind. As Bell had no ethical or professional responsibility to deliver truth to the masses, he had no ethical or professional responsibility to override his instinct to believe something that he was told that validated some of his other ideas and beliefs.
Placing any blame on Bell, Streiber, or any of the other goofballs mentioned in the article is silly. A decent number of adults murdered themselves because they believed in something. Art Bell didn't tell them to believe that something. It's not Art Bell's responsibility to tell people what to believe -- nor is it Don Ecker's. Those adult people believed something because that's how their brains worked. Nobody could have walked into that house, laid down some science, and ended a bad time.
It's human nature to believe information that validates those things in which one already believes. There are many, many published papers on the phenomenon. Even if Bell had exposed the truth, those who are compelled to believe would find a way to believe. Art Bell would just become part of a "them," who work to cause harm to or mislead the "us." It's a very difficult thing to do, in some cases, to override the part of the brain that wants to believe information that vindicates a preexisting bias. It's not a very common practice. Rarer is the practice of taking it a step further and seeking out and objectively processing further information from non-biased or strictly fact-based sources that disagrees with that bias. If people aren't murdering themselves over UFO comets, they're murdering themselves over Jesus, Allah, and a host of other goofy sh*t. Belief is a powerful thing. It's part of the collective human experience.
You've all unknowingly put nuts on the air at one time or another, because you believed what was being said or just thought it sounded interesting. It's really not a big deal.
