A Personal View Of The
The Internet Subculture
Surrounding the JonBenet Ramsey Murder case
Click "Webdollie" banner for "Guest Index" listing
|The Dave Lucas Radio Show|
January 14, 1999 Show Comments
|FROM THE BOULDER NEWS FORUM
ginja - 11:00am Jan 14, 1999 MST (#19 of 20)
Ohhh what a tangled web....
Matty, Matty, Matty, did you really tell beanie to "get that kunt"!!!! The meds have worn off, buddy....here goes. The topic of the show was the "internet subculture". That "subculture" revolves around the "warring" factions in that the subculture is comprised of three groups: the pro-Rams, the anti-Rams, and the fencesitters. A well-balanced program would have put those three factions to the test. Fencesitters are basically neutral, so the validity of argument would have been between the pros and antis. The host's position would be to pull out the differences of opinion between the two factions. And those differences would have to be validated. On that, the show failed on all counts.
Lucas sat back and let you "control" the format. But you went further and "manipulated" it. What I mean is, is that the "host" would open the show with a brief outline that there's a subculture, it's made up of this and that, and then he'd open the lines for the "factions" to take the reins and keep the show moving. The "host" sits back and basically referees...he doesn't take over and take most of the air time to voice his own POV. If, and when, the callers get out of hand, go off topic, defame others, or out-and-out lie, then the host should come back and bring order.
The problem I saw that night was that "you" controlled not only the show's format, but the callers. It was not yours, or even Dave Lucas' , position to "avoid" confrontation. You put Jameson on...great achievement, congratulations...I take nothing away from you for doing that. And you let Jams continue with her POV. Fine, too. But the real problem you avoided and refused to tackle, was her credibility and the validity of her comments.
The reason why there are two different sides to this fence is because there are different POVs of the facts! It's one thing to get on the air and say the Rams aren't guilty because the caller doesn't believe the Rams capable of murder. But what of the actual facts! There's no credibility or validity to that statement. And when someone like Jameson is put to the test to validate her comments, her response is "I can't divulge that." That's neither credible nor validating.
DMinor's call was to force validity and credibility of an issue. You have hundreds of people listening in on a show that's telling them that this person (Jameson) is valid and credible and that if she says or claims the Rams are innocent, they believe it carte blanche, because she "sounds" credible and what the hell, she's on a radio show. DMinor's call was necessary to point to the fact that Jameson's claims "weren't" valid or credible, or, at the very least, shouldn't be accepted as carte blanche.
I've listened to the tapes of the night I was on and can't believe so much was said and I didn't comment. Being sick and on meds isn't a good time to be making any statements on live radio, for sure! :-) I think, god! how did I let Lance get away with that! or why didn't I come back with this or that! For what it's worth, if I had been well and straight, you'd have had more to contend with than a phone call from DMinor!
So anyway, interested in doing this again with a straight, healthy kunt?
END OF GINJA POSTING
[Return To ACandyRose Subculture Main Page]
[The United States Constitution]
which includes the
First Amendment "Freedom Of Speech"
If there are any questions regarding this site
Please send comments to webmaster
Last Update: June 13, 2001 9:05am EST
Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 ACandyRose©