 |
| Articles on this page are |
| Crytozooolgy |
| Fortean Times The Magazine of the Damned |
| Fortean Times The magazine of the Damned Below are examples of editorial bias, plus a selection of FT's own damned articles and I could pick them almost at random because they always argue from the same position.These articles are undoubtedly intelligent, learned and skeptical in tone and it was this combination that initially appealled to me. And also the fact that they seemed to be open minded enough to explore the full gamut of anomalous phenomena But they now look like clever legalistic manipulation of information and I only read it to arm myself with the up to date sceptical position.That some of the main features are pro paranormal I'm well aware of, but the majority of features aren't and anyway, the rest of the magazine creates an intellectual environment to cast doubt on the validity of these few pro articles -------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Cryptozoology One of the things that initially put me off the FT was it's proliferation of cryptozoological articles. But I came to see why that was so. Cryptozoology was a 'safe' subject. Mythical monsters could be described as myths and odd animals could be just animals that Science hadn't bothered to look for.There was nothing very paranormal in it |
| UFO"S and Peter Brooksmith The first inkling that I got that all was not well with the FT was it's coverage of Ufology. FT's almost resident skeptical UFO writer Peter Brooksmith had basically unchallenged coverage on Ufolgical issues. Ironically I have and would have accepted this, except for the fact of a lack of balancing articles. I found this lack of balance perplexing, because even if UFO's are not real in the Nuts and Bolts sense there is obviously some phenomena there and the 'twilight zone' view expressed by Ufologist J Vallee is definitely not something you can easily argue away, but you never see it expressed in the FT.The reason which I now see as obvious, is that it looks like you need to have to accept some validity to the paranormal to believe in the Vallee position.That's something the FT could never do!. |
| -----------These next three articles came around the FT's 100th edition and seemed to be a concerted attempt to ally itself with Science given the FT's new found status in the media---. |
| Richard Dawkins FT 105:47 Here's a strange non interview with the 90's most prominent PR man for Science. I must admit I saw red when I saw Richard Dawkins in the FT. And the quote that Forteans should be like him, appalling. Dawkins epitomises for me the closed mind combined with the ingenious capability to intellectuallly twist and turn information to see black as white, and I'm afraid only a totally critical article would be acceptible of him and his work in the F.T. |
| Fortean Institute FT 100:52 When I read this article by Rob Rickard the alarm bells sounded loudly.The basic premise of a Fortean database seems fine, but further down the article he says 'on this backbone there would be additional departments or services concerned with publications, lectures, exhibitions, education programmes for schools encouraging research and discussion.' A Database, Yes.An Institute, No. If Forteanism means anything at all, it should be the totally unregulated flow of ideas. Any attempt to form an organisation, is simply an attempt control that flow and force a 'consensus' view to gain power and influence in society. An Institute is something Fort himself would have regarded with profound suspicion. |
| Science Friction FT 107:45 The basis of this whole article is to argue that Forteanism is the same as Science, which I have no problem with. But Fort was never against Science he was against the establishment and the gist of this piece seems to infer that somehow the establishment isn't as bad as it used to be and that Forteans and Scientists should now live together in harmony. At the time I read this I was annoyed at the attempt of the FT of getting all palsy walsy with Science, but reading it again I feel the whole article an exercise in sophistry and the quote "There's no conflict between the beliefs of a good Fortean and a good scientist" true, but practically meaningless.It just seems to be a carefully worded sentence aimed at trying to make a unity between these two different viewpoints. I agree that there is no difference between a good Fortean and good scientists and in an ideal world they would all be seen as the same. But in the real world they have to be segregated out and none of them are served properly by the institutions that are supposed to represent them.The Scientific establishment and the Fortean Times (The equivalent Establishment) are socio-political organisations that manipulate, control information and decide what is to be ignored and what is to be championed for their own socio-political objectives. Fort was against the establishment for exactly this reason and I see the nothing better in their behaviour now that would make him feel any different if he was alive today. To me the FT is a new upstart Establishment attempting to get in bed with the old establishment and there's nothing new in that,it's a process old as mankind himself.And ironically I believe Fort would be anti-FT as well as anti establishment. |
| UFO's and Peter Brooksmith |
| Richard Dawkins |
| Fortean Institute |
| Science Friction |
 |
| The Fortean Times - A Critical Review |