>>There's no such tendency. There simply hasn't been any positive articles, save for the one that interviewed Kage about Anthrocon a couple of years ago.
>You do realize the fact that you're only aware of one positive article proves my point that the positive media coverage gets ignored, right?
Quite the contrary. The fact that I'm only aware of one positive article is indicative of that there has been no other positive coverage. I keep track, same as you. One of the chief differences between the two of us is that we disagree sharply as to what can be considered as positive coverage.
>When you look at the attention furry fandom's gotten in the media over the years, the spotlight consistently gets put on the negative articles while the positive articles are ignored or trivialized. As a result, the persistent---but nonetheless false---assertation that "furry fandom never gets any good press" remains.
False by your own assertion, perhaps, but that assertion is of itself untrue. The little good press that the fandom has received has been a drop in the bucket compared to the deluge of negative press its received. The Antrhocon article of a couple of years ago was the first good press the fandom had received in over fifteen years. Everything else before that was negative or else slanted towards the lifestyler fragment.
>For your information, there have been at least four times furry fandom has gotten positive coverage in the media:
* Animal Instincts: Fans of Furry Critters Convene to Help Mankind - Tri-Valley Herald, 01/23/03
I couldn't even read this site or the article until someone finally reposted it here. (My appreciation for that, by the way.) As far as it goes, it's okay. Better than most. But it still doesn't give a wholly accurate impression. What I got from it was that the con was about people wearing fursuits. One person was even quoted as saying that the fandom was all about anything to do with animals -- which it isn't. And even though that might have been taken as one individual's unique perspective of the fandom, I didn't see anything to counter or balance it. It was okay as an article. But this is also a recent event, and not a fair counter-argument to whether or not there have been positive articles in the past.
>* A 'Furry' Tale for a Foxy College Student - Olympian, 04/24/02
* Invasion of the Furries - Wayne Suburban, 07/26/01
* Public Radio International (.mp3 - 716K), 01/22/99
I'm only getting 404's from these sites. Perhaps you should post the actual urls?
>This the sort of coverage I've always thought should be in the spotlight; the things we actually want people to see. These are the sort of things that should be distributed as far and wide within the fandom as possible, so when outsiders come looking for information they get an accurate idea of what the fandom is about.
Not being able to access the sites you mention above, I can't comment directly upon them. But I've seen in the past what you considered the sort of articles that you thought were acceptable, and as I often do, I take issue with them. The only article I've seen to date that best epitomizes exactly what a furry con and the furry fandom is about is the very recent Roy Hill article (mentioned elsewhere on Flayrah), and that is what I want outsiders to see.
>I'm sure you're reading this and getting ready to reply with the usual baseless accusation that putting the focus on the positive articles instead of the negative ones qualifies as "ignoring problems," so I might as well blast a hole in that argument now and save myself some time.
Frankly, I think you've missed the boat, as you so often do. It isn't a matter of focusing on the positive articles at all, since there have been none until very recently to focus on at all, and those few have only just turned up. (Except for the one from two years ago, of course.) Other than that, there was nothing.
And, yes, I do think the negative reports should be paid attention to as well, if only to note that they are there, to note how many there were, and to note specifically what was being said, so in order to correct those impressions by not repeating the mistakes that originally led to those misimpressions to begin with.
>Have you ever gotten one of those "business opportunity" chain letters in your e-mail that goes on at length about how it's not a pyramid scheme or illegal or a scam? Do you ever believe them?
I don't even accept spam in my mailbox; it's all deleted unopened. So your point here is rather pointless.
>Perhaps that will help you realize that putting the spotlight on the negative media coverage and telling people "this isn't what we're about" hasn't been anywhere near effective.
And trying to pretend to people that such things don't exist or never happen only makes you look foolish and naive in their eyes, as well as less than honest. At all times, its best to take the bull by the horns, than risk being gored from behind.
It is a far better investment of time and effort to tell people what you are instead of what you aren't. I can tell you this from personal experience, because that's what I've been doing all these years and have never gotten any flak for being involved in furry fandom as a result.
You've gotten a good deal of flak for it in the newsgroups, in case you've forgotten it, not the least of which has been from me. Your approach has some good points to it, but only to a certain point. You can't ignore questions about past misbehaviors and unfortunate events, and you can't downplay them without being dishonest; you have to meet the problems head on, not tiptoe around them.
You can argue all you want against it, but when all is said and done, I must be doing something right.
You say that so often these days, that I'm begining to believe that you're trying to convince yourself of it. I remain, as ever, unconvinced by your actions or argument.
>>There's no such tendency. There simply hasn't been any positive articles, save for the one that interviewed Kage about Anthrocon a couple of years ago.
>You do realize the fact that you're only aware of one positive article proves my point that the positive media coverage gets ignored, right?
Quite the contrary. The fact that I'm only aware of one positive article is indicative of that there has been no other positive coverage. I keep track, same as you. One of the chief differences between the two of us is that we disagree sharply as to what can be considered as positive coverage.
>When you look at the attention furry fandom's gotten in the media over the years, the spotlight consistently gets put on the negative articles while the positive articles are ignored or trivialized. As a result, the persistent---but nonetheless false---assertation that "furry fandom never gets any good press" remains.
False by your own assertion, perhaps, but that assertion is of itself untrue. The little good press that the fandom has received has been a drop in the bucket compared to the deluge of negative press its received. The Antrhocon article of a couple of years ago was the first good press the fandom had received in over fifteen years. Everything else before that was negative or else slanted towards the lifestyler fragment.
>For your information, there have been at least four times furry fandom has gotten positive coverage in the media:
* Animal Instincts: Fans of Furry Critters Convene to Help Mankind - Tri-Valley Herald, 01/23/03
I couldn't even read this site or the article until someone finally reposted it here. (My appreciation for that, by the way.) As far as it goes, it's okay. Better than most. But it still doesn't give a wholly accurate impression. What I got from it was that the con was about people wearing fursuits. One person was even quoted as saying that the fandom was all about anything to do with animals -- which it isn't. And even though that might have been taken as one individual's unique perspective of the fandom, I didn't see anything to counter or balance it. It was okay as an article. But this is also a recent event, and not a fair counter-argument to whether or not there have been positive articles in the past.
>* A 'Furry' Tale for a Foxy College Student - Olympian, 04/24/02
* Invasion of the Furries - Wayne Suburban, 07/26/01
* Public Radio International (.mp3 - 716K), 01/22/99
I'm only getting 404's from these sites. Perhaps you should post the actual urls?
>This the sort of coverage I've always thought should be in the spotlight; the things we actually want people to see. These are the sort of things that should be distributed as far and wide within the fandom as possible, so when outsiders come looking for information they get an accurate idea of what the fandom is about.
Not being able to access the sites you mention above, I can't comment directly upon them. But I've seen in the past what you considered the sort of articles that you thought were acceptable, and as I often do, I take issue with them. The only article I've seen to date that best epitomizes exactly what a furry con and the furry fandom is about is the very recent Roy Hill article (mentioned elsewhere on Flayrah), and that is what I want outsiders to see.
>I'm sure you're reading this and getting ready to reply with the usual baseless accusation that putting the focus on the positive articles instead of the negative ones qualifies as "ignoring problems," so I might as well blast a hole in that argument now and save myself some time.
Frankly, I think you've missed the boat, as you so often do. It isn't a matter of focusing on the positive articles at all, since there have been none until very recently to focus on at all, and those few have only just turned up. (Except for the one from two years ago, of course.) Other than that, there was nothing.
And, yes, I do think the negative reports should be paid attention to as well, if only to note that they are there, to note how many there were, and to note specifically what was being said, so in order to correct those impressions by not repeating the mistakes that originally led to those misimpressions to begin with.
>Have you ever gotten one of those "business opportunity" chain letters in your e-mail that goes on at length about how it's not a pyramid scheme or illegal or a scam? Do you ever believe them?
I don't even accept spam in my mailbox; it's all deleted unopened. So your point here is rather pointless.
>Perhaps that will help you realize that putting the spotlight on the negative media coverage and telling people "this isn't what we're about" hasn't been anywhere near effective.
And trying to pretend to people that such things don't exist or never happen only makes you look foolish and naive in their eyes, as well as less than honest. At all times, its best to take the bull by the horns, than risk being gored from behind.
It is a far better investment of time and effort to tell people what you are instead of what you aren't. I can tell you this from personal experience, because that's what I've been doing all these years and have never gotten any flak for being involved in furry fandom as a result.
You've gotten a good deal of flak for it in the newsgroups, in case you've forgotten it, not the least of which has been from me. Your approach has some good points to it, but only to a certain point. You can't ignore questions about past misbehaviors and unfortunate events, and you can't downplay them without being dishonest; you have to meet the problems head on, not tiptoe around them.
You can argue all you want against it, but when all is said and done, I must be doing something right.
You say that so often these days, that I'm begining to believe that you're trying to convince yourself of it. I remain, as ever, unconvinced by your actions or argument.
-Chuck Melville-