This article will bring a ton of people to the website. I found it mostly accurate if somewhat sensational. It is quite true that this site is about the next twenty years being very different and the need to prepare. It is necessary to write this way in mass market publications to hold the readers attention. How many people even read anymore?
If you or anyone else wants control of the message then you have to put it out yourself. If you want control over what goes out in print in the mainstream press you have to have an ironclad contract giving final approval over what is published.
As for the gun thing. I personally have sent people here to the site who were put off by the Definitive Firearms thread. It does give the site a survivalist persona.
Finally if it were me I would be ecstatic. Lots of publicity and they spelled the names right. One can argue the merits of good or bad publicity all day long but it is really hard to tell the final results from here.
I know no one wants to hear this but here goes:
Three kinds of people will read this article:
Too uninformed and disinterested to care. They can’t be bothered to watch TCC and cannot be helped. Their biases will be confirmed and they will continue in their cluelessness.
Us and those like us.
Those people who are both salvageable and intellectually curious enough to go to the site and watch TCC. 30 seconds into Chapter 1, they will start to comprehend the truth and we will have added one to our ranks.
I see any reasonable exposure to ideas in TCC as an improvement at this point. When TSHTF, they will all come around. Keep up the good work, and remember that our future is far bigger than this article.
Living through Hurricane Alex in South Texas today. Eye wall about 100 miles south of my house. Not at all worried about someone else’s opinion of my preparations for an uncertain future. I am glad, and I wish I had a bunker. . .
Chris,
We now have a very real and factual example of how MSM functions to neutralize those who sincerely work to make the world a better place. We don’t have to present any belief based theories on how distortions of the truth are created by what seem to be credible and straight forward reporting by established publishing entities.We shall know them by their actions!
Now we have the facts. I suspect there is a way to use this information to expose the truth of our predicament which in this case would be “fuzzy publishing”; beware of what you read!We may even need to publish a “Guide to THE METHODS USED BY MSM TO ALTER THE TRUTH”.
It is always interesting to me how those who choose to misrepresent the truth (in other words…commit harmful acts) also leave a clue as to their own true motivations. In this case they have accused you of doing what they themselves are in fact doing; sensationalizing a story by altering the facts to sell more copy.
Lesson well learned I am sure. As angry as I ( and most of the rest of those that visit your website) become over the blatant distortions of truth, we must also carry on with actions that are constructive. So I have not posted what I actually said or felt when I read the article…I’m just adding another bit of hard won knowledge to my files and sharpening my sword so to speak!
I will write a comment to the editor of that piece…after I am much less irritated that now!
I know no one wants to hear this but here goes:
Three kinds of people will read this article:
Too uninformed and disinterested to care. They can’t be bothered to watch TCC and cannot be helped. Their biases will be confirmed and they will continue in their cluelessness.
Us and those like us.
Those people who are both salvageable and intellectually curious enough to go to the site and watch TCC. 30 seconds into Chapter 1, they will start to comprehend the truth and we will have added one to our ranks.
I see any reasonable exposure to ideas in TCC as an improvement at this point. When TSHTF, they will all come around. Keep up the good work, and remember that our future is far bigger than this article.
Living through Hurricane Alex in South Texas today. Eye wall about 100 miles south of my house. Not at all worried about someone else’s opinion of my preparations for an uncertain future. I am glad, and I wish I had a bunker. . .
When I watched TCC and read the material posted here, it instantly became the first blog I read every day PRECISELY because it is NOT the extreme view but a caring, nurturing, hopeful - yet realistic view of things. I do not believe the article will do Chris any real long term harm. There is some truth to “there is no such thing as bad PR”. This could get a lot of attention and interest from people who will come to the site and judge for themselves. Stay the course, Martinson!!!
Dr. Martenson,
I’ve just got to throw this out there - I sincerely apologize for any disrepute I cost this website by creating DFT.
I was so red in the face I couldn’t think reading the “finishing touch” of that article. Someone might as well just told me I left the burner on and burnt someone’s house down.
This kind of myopic, counter-contextual slander is pretty shallow. Anyone limber minded enough to consider the implications of a social collapse should be responsible enough to consider self-defense.
Terribly sorry for drawing you negative attention…
Chris
I am shocked. I do not recommend sueing this magazine - only because it is a pointless drain on your energy and time. But I don’t understand how they could publish it thinking they couldn’t be sued ?
I have put up my comment on the Boston Magazine site under the article. I notice the number of sad faces who don’t like it, is growing very fast. Which is one nice thing.
I encourage everyone on this site to comment on Boston Magazine’s CM article - noting that Chris’s request is that if we do, we do it in a calm, factual and collected manner.
On the bright side, any publicity is good publicity. At least according to the politicians.
Chris:
I’ve noticed some people expressing regret over allowing themselves to be profiled by mainstream media or documentary filmmakers. They always seem to be sympathetic and want to do a “positive” story.
Then when the stuff hits the presses or cinemas, they realize what had happened. The reporters and filmmakers were only being nice to keep them off guard and gather all the information they needed to fit their own agenda, which often isn’t that of the people being profiled or interviewed.
Hopefully more people will see through the media’s bull than not.
Hey Aaron,
Don’t beat yourself up. The writer cherry-picked the site searching for a thread like DFT. The DFT info will continue to help numeroso folks;the sheeple will forget the Sunday Globe a day later, except for those that come here and stick.
Chris
Try not to take it personally, even though it is personal. I think V (post 20) is on the right track. Most people understand how the media sensationalizes things. If they are receptive to your message they will see through the cheap tricks and come to this site to learn more. Many will stay. Just remember the old saying, “All publicity is good.”
There was a lot of good information in between the hype and they did recognize your sincerity. “Yet Martenson seems driven solely by an urgent desire to share his ideas. His core message is still available at no charge. “ I would advise you to be more discrete on guns, gold storage, and anything a reporter can sensationalize. You can see why public figures become experts at talking without saying anything after they have had this experience a few times.
The article was badly slanted, but think long and hard before responding further to Boston Magazine. There is an old saying , “Never get into a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel.” They will just make you look bad. You have plenty of people who are happy to fight them on your behalf. This is the price the media charges for the exposure they deliver. I admire your dedication and the courage your family has displayed to expose yourselves this way in order to get the message out.
However, the photo-shopped bunker was over the top. I would pursue that. Too bad they didn’t add a pitchfork to the photo of you and Becca (a la American Gothic painting) and use that. J
First, kudos to the other commenters at Boston Mag who are familiar with Chris and the Crash Course. The comments have plainly been unhappy with the article but have made the criticism known without resorting to the kind of ranting that so often characterizes online communications. Here’s the comment I left:
This article bears little resemblance to the man and the subject that it was supposedly written to cover. I read it, and then I read it again. The Crash Course is not about doom. Chris Martenson is not about doom. Martenson and his Crash Course are, at the most basic, about one thing and that thing is educating people on the three E's (energy, economy and environment) so that they might have a better understanding of how this system in which we live actually works and what may (just may) happen to it if we don't wake up and take steps far enough in advance to prepare for changes in the availability of finite resources. Is there even a link to the Crash Course in this article? There should be. And people that want to understand what Martenson is about should start there. I recommend the course highly.
How many people think she watched the Crash Course?
I seriously doubt she did.
“I’m optimistic about the future” + “The next 20 years won’t be like the last 20” ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ (NOT EQUAL) Some Bunker Mentality.
Guns, chickens, gardens, gold are all things the average person isn’t acclimated to, has no exposure to. However, if they have any clue whatsoever as to the inner workings of the “economy” those things wouldn’t appear “bunkerish”. Either she didn’t watch the Crash Course or she is the first ‘flunkee’ of the Crash Course.
First, thank you all for your thoughtful and caring responses above and at the BM site.
Second, Aaron, I appreciate your concern, and, truthfully, I would have felt the same as you, because we are built the same, andit’s totally unnecessary. I am the one who makes the decisions for what topics remain “front and center” and which do not, and although I solicit a lot of opinions and ideas from others about what to include and exclude, it turns out that I am responsible for the inclusion and exclusion of topics and no one else.
So let me soften all this somewhat. Pagan, the author, left out a very important set of details about the shooting experience. The way it unfolded is that during our conversations about everything else, she let slip (hint, hint, HINT) that on a past story assignment regarding gay activists who had decided to arm themselves to protect themselves from hate crimes, she had been offered a chance to go to the range with these fellows. Sadly, it fell through and she’d love to go shooting (hint, HINT!) seeing as how this past chance had fallen through. As a liberal from New England, the chance to go to the range does not come along that often, I guess.
At any rate, a special date was set up for her to come back and go to the range with me; could she bring a local friend?
Fortunately, I now understand, I happen to be extremely safety-conscious in my approach. As it happens, my middle name is “captainsafety,” and I pressed her and her local guest (another woman) on many, many issues before we fired a single round. I say ‘fortunately’ because I suspect that she checked the MA state laws after our session, and if I had been in violation of any of them, I see that she would have written about it and done what she could to get me in trouble.
Some background: We did not drive down a dusty lane overhanging with branches scratching the car before we got to a wasteland of sand, or whatever was written; I forget the exact inaccuracies scribed. We went through a fob-key-controlled automatic gate guarding the entrance to my gun club before heading down a 200 yard road (yes, gravel) to a set of shooting pavillions, each with their own metal-roofed bench areas and appropriately scaled berms.
We started with Walther P22s, which each woman shot for a few clips, as did I. I then asked if either would like to shoot a 9mm, again at 15 feet. Pagan said yes(!). Executing some nice incipient skill, she happened to drill her second shot though the center. Kudos for that.
What happened next, I have told around the campfire 3x since then because it is so funny. This liberal NE woman, who had never shot a pistol before, and who had been schooled by me extensively on barrel and trigger finger awareness, etc, and whom I was standing right next to with my hands at the loose and ready(because I do not trust brand new shooters at all), commenced to hooting and hollering and - I kid you not - DANCING with her finger on the trigger of a pistol now precariously waving about in the air.
In all my years of teaching people how to shoot (20 years and counting), I have only ever made a move for and grabbed a gun from a student twice in my life. This was one of those times. She was elated by the experience and was visibly excited, so I did not tell her that I had only ever grabbed a gun twice out of fear, because I did not want to intrude on her excitement. Her elation was so palpable during the whole ride back that 20 minutes later at home that my wife noted it and asked why she was so animated. “I hit the center!!!” was the answer from the still-excited journalist.
To have that somehow converted into what you read in the article is, I confess, one of the more profound betrayals of an experience in my life that I can readily recall - not because of how she pulled a single worried concern out of 2,000 comments and somehow tried to make me responsible for it (dumb, shallow, indefensible) - but because I took the time to give her a safe, quality, and exciting moment in her life and she still manged to used it to try and smear you, me, and everybody else.
Somehow that’ s worse.
When somebody takes the time, and effort, to share what they know, and care enough to educate you, using your positive and exciting experience to tar them seems especially tasteless in my world. I will acknowledge that perhaps I take all this too seriously, but in my world when someone cares enough to teach me something, I am grateful, always thankful, and certainly never intentionally harmful. But that, perhaps, is a characteristic that separates the various types.
So rest easy. “No good deed goes unpunished” is the lesson sometimes, but we can only do our best .
I hope these comments persist in the etherspace and that the next guy that Pagan Kennedy tries to con into providing her with an honest and helpful experience will manage to find this thread and realize that the best course of action is to just play dumb, pretend they have nothing to offer, and know that they’ve just saved themselves an extremely valuable afternoon and very probably some future heartburn.
Well, I placed my name where the title to the comments should be. LOL
This is Pete. I wrote that the article had to be a hit piece. What I want to know is, Why?
Dear Sir or Madam:
After reading the article on Chris Martenson’s Crash Course I have come to the conclusion that one of two things caused this most inaccurate and irresponsible piece of journalism to be published. First, you, the editors did not perform due diligence in verifying the story that Pagan presented to you, or… you intentionally approved a dishonest, distorted, sensationalist article for publication to boost sales for your magazine.
As you (should) know, credibility is the only thing you have as (so-called) journalists in terms of marketability. Having been a member of Chris Martenson’s website for 18 months, and seen the gross distortion that you have painted of him, I can only wonder what other distortions you set to print for whatever motive it seems suits your fancy.
However, the damage is done, and you have both distorted and assailed the character and credibility of a good man, who’s altruistic intentions are his only crime (in your eyes). To help bring about greater awareness of the utterly fraudulent journalism perpetrated by Boston Magazine, I have sent emails to family and friends linking them to the article and Chris’ website asking them to perform a sanity check as to the veracity of the article. Furthermore, I make claim to them that your article is a clear case of "the hand in the cookie jar"with respect to journalistic dishonesty and ask them to make the comparison for themselves and reach their own conclusions I believe that this will show them firsthand an example of how journalism can be used to distort real events, real ideas, and real people into something other than they are. Well, at least at Boston Magazine.
In short, I challenge them to make a case study out of if, and if satisfied and in agreement with my claim, to send it to 10-20 of their friends to bring greater awareness of mainstream media malfeasance. Although I am disgusted with your tactics, some good should come out of this. If I can demonstrate to people a good reason to neither trust, nor financially support mainstream publications such as yours, then it will be worth the effort.I will merely ask them to judge for themselves.
Clearly you have given me a great incentive to do so. You will not clear Chris’ name, so the efforts of many will have to.
P.S. I am bringing this article to the attention of the editors of other blogs who are sympathetic to Chris’ cause as well as several media watchdog groups. I’m sure that they’ll have a field day with it. I am also asking friends to do the same. You have a great power at your disposal. But it is a power than you have abused, and in doing so committed both journalistic fraud and betrayed the public trust. Thankfully, there now exists an alternative to mainstream media that can and will cast sunshine on your tactics and provide feedback to the public so that they may see the truth of this situation.
See, I am exercising MY first amendment rights. I am just asking them to see for themselves and to reach their own conclusions. Now that’s good journalism.
Regards,
Pete Bartels
