Senator Mike Gravel Interview Part 1 of 2

Nice job getting such a strong interview for your first go at it. Also congrats for taking the leap in and trying your hand at interviewing/hosting a short segment. It's good to look at the positives and make sure to put emphasis on your strengths. You come across pretty relaxed and seem to be generally like able, which is a great asset. But like other's have pointed out, there are some things you can and should do next time around, or you'll find yourself hard pressed to get any serious guest.

These seem to me at least like generally easy things to fix too. Like don't goof around (on your first interview especially) at the guests' expense, or even worse you audiences (when you make light of subjects your viewing audience takes seriously it's definitely not good). Coming prepared or at least appearing so will add to the feeling of you taking the interview seriously as well, and will help the show in many ways. But I often use humor when I'm nervous so I understand where it comes from, I'd be a hypocrite to nag on you too much for it, I'm sure you'll be better next time around.

I'd like to see it look like your taking things a bit more seriously, but without coming across fake. It seems like you have the character to pull this off. Definitely a strength there.

Also (and this is minor, I know you have a lot of questions and short time) but maybe let guests talk a bit more, as long as they are giving interesting info and there's no dead silence, there's no need to rush to the next question. Some of the best information you may get in a setting like this will be an afterthought from your guest if you let the continue to talk. Yes of course coming up with impromptu follow up questions will come with time and experience, so it's hard to fault you there. But maybe tighten up the prepared questions a bit.

Overall I enjoyed the look of the show and I think some fixes will make it much more enjoyable. I especially liked the old television. We used to have one just like that when I was a kid. Days before the cable box ,the big brown clunky thing attached with a wire, older members know what I'm talking about..I hope Days when you had to actually get up to change the channel. Can you really hook up to one of those, or was that just a newer screen inside an old case? If it was, excellent job, cause the old set looked totally authentic.

Again I think with a little tweaking this would be a show I'd tune into. Good Luck on your next interview.

reply to post by Notheycant


Putting your life on the line under a name and a face makes you admirable somewhat.

No one makes the first jump as they say. I wasn't a genius the first time I picked up a guitar,drumsticks or thumped my vocal chords in a mic. Maybe not the best analogy but you should get the picture.

On camera, talking to a senator, interviewing him, makes you very self-conscious and "within yourself/mind observant" and takes one off the edge.

So don't take heed to what the nei-sayers are batting you off about. You'll get better! Good job and just be better prepared next time. Meditate before the interview and zone in.

Looking forward to seeing more.

Let the truth come out!

TKDRL
I have to ask, what exactly is the intention with these new videos? Is it supposed to entertain the regulars here? Supposed to bring in masses of new people, and try to suck them in?

To me all the comedic stuff thrown in there seems more like mocking, not "laughing with us, but laughing at us". I can see you not wanting it to be "too dry", but IMO you seem uninformed about the topic you were discussing, and a bit too much comedy for my taste. On the flip side, maybe people like getting their that John Stewart guy might get a kick out of it, I am just not part of that group of people unfortunately.

John Stweart and Stephen Colbert are two personalities on TV that actually talk about the most important issues with their topics. They also say a lot more than anyone in their right mind would publicly, about certain policies, and get away with it because it's satire.

The art of comedy is basically telling the truth in a palpable manner. Dating back to the days of the Jester. That being said, I wasn't able to watch the video at the moment, but other videos I watched with Josh had me amused.

This is key:
Any attempt at humor did not serve to change the entertainment level of the interview because it was the same completely dry interview format, fragmented by moments of completely off topic goofiness.


I have to agree with the majority of posters. Their constructive criticism is very well placed. I cannot see the advantage of being goofy at the risk of outright offending so many over a professional format that might not appeal to some but offend no one. For a talented host, professional does not equate to dry. Nassim Haramein is brilliantly humorous and engaging even though his talks are about quantum physics.

During your introduction thread I cringed when considering the consequences of using such a mocking, immature format for a topic that people feel so strongly about and pursue with so much pride. Watching this interview was so embarrassing to me that I actually started to sweat. Maybe it is a cultural phenomena whereas the latest generation does not realize that this type of arrogant, drunken frat party behavior is interpreted by all the other generations as rude mockery.

There is nothing wrong with humor. Many talented hosts are very funny. But they are also graceful. They don't do it disrespectfully at the expense of the guest or the audience, and they don't do it at a child's level unless that is their target audience. Otherwise it is suicide. Even when a host makes fun of a guest they do it as a partnership with their guest so the guest feels like they are contributing to the humor. The likes of David Letterman and Alan Carr are famous for this.

Not only did you monkey around while your guest sat there silently enduring, but apart from a goof ridden "thanks" at the end of the interview there was no sincere appreciation expressed for the guests contribution to ATS or disclosure, no complements, no praises.
Zero grace.

Like others have said here, You are likable and have presence. You have the motivation to put together this show and the courage to get in front of the camera. But I cannot stress enough that I feel your choice of format is inappropriate and potentially destructive.

reply to post by Notheycant


Pretty good for the most part, thanks for the interview. That insincere thank you at the end to the Senator, blah. And again with the stupid noises at the start, blah. But Gravel did state his views and gives a little more gravitas to the overall questions and information that he raises. And when you say "Part Two" is that just a joke, because it looked like the full interview was there (except for some edits, which are video equivalents of ......).

Notheycant
Not mad at any of these comments, I take everything with a grain of salt.

And here's the problem, or part of it...it's admirable that you kinda have a thick skin, but not so good maybe that you're not taking harsh but interested and well meaning constructive criticism on board even long enough to acknowledge it. Actually, that's very rude in my book. Everyone who has been critical here, has had something useful to say,and is genuinely interested in what you're doing whether you realise that or not. Your attitude to us, maybe backed up by others, seems to be, ok, I'm a happy bunny, I'm gonna clown about and be silly and *youthful*, I'm not hearing all you have to say if it's slightly negative, and I'll deal with it with more vacuous superficial comments and just ignore the bloody lot.

I didn't once suggest that you make the interview more formal, in response to the person who maybe got their posters mixed up. That wouldn't be right for you.

I have better things to do with my time than debate this with you, so considering your responses, and the first video effort, I'm done here. I won't be watching part 2.

OK, I finally watched this as aliens isn't my thing but I wanted to understand the whining about this. My thoughts are confirmed. FRICKIN WHINING. There was nothing wrong with this interview. It was informal but the questions asked were apropos to the topic and he wasn't disrespectful. A little joke on the end. Colbert jokes all through his interviews. The only thing that I found could use some work is the audio from the interviewee. My ears aren't that good and had to struggle a bit hearing him. That is easily fixed.

Before Part II is uploaded, has anyone thought to ask Sen. Gravel what he thought of Part I?

I for one would sure like to know what happened after he and the rest of the group that was involved with the Citizen's Hearing on Disclosure presented a paper to the U.N. requesting that formal global hearings and disclosure if appropriate, be held. Have they heard back? Has anything happened at all on this topic since May?

It's rather an important topic, after all - whether there are beings from other planets interacting with some of us, whether individuals or governments, and whether those interactions are covert or out in the open.

Not to mention how much of our tax dollars may have been spent on projects we are neither apprised of, or allowed to vote on. And then there's the problem that our 'elected representatives' were unaware of all this information, too. Trillions of our dollars are 'missing' and it's not a joke.

reply to post by Notheycant




I think U should interview " The Killers " instead of Mike Gravel. I1m sure they could answer all your questions.

reply to post by Notheycant


Hey, I liked this !

You got Senator Gravel to talk about the issue of ET and the government in a very natural way.

To me, that's a darn good job done, Josh !!

The audio kinda sucked (Hey, nobody's perfect) but I enjoyed this and look forward to part II.

S&F !

I am not a fan of the interview style but I must say good on you for taking a crack at it just the same. It could be better and with some practice I think you will improve. However, be yourself no matter what. People will hate to love it and love to hate it no matter what you do so just apply yourself and do the best you can and let it go where it may.

reply to post by Notheycant


Great Start for ATS s&f keep up the good work ATS

caitlinfae

Notheycant
Not mad at any of these comments, I take everything with a grain of salt.

And here's the problem, or part of it...it's admirable that you kinda have a thick skin, but not so good maybe that you're not taking harsh but interested and well meaning constructive criticism on board even long enough to acknowledge it. Actually, that's very rude in my book. Everyone who has been critical here, has had something useful to say,and is genuinely interested in what you're doing whether you realise that or not. Your attitude to us, maybe backed up by others, seems to be, ok, I'm a happy bunny, I'm gonna clown about and be silly and *youthful*, I'm not hearing all you have to say if it's slightly negative, and I'll deal with it with more vacuous superficial comments and just ignore the bloody lot.

I didn't once suggest that you make the interview more formal, in response to the person who maybe got their posters mixed up. That wouldn't be right for you.

I have better things to do with my time than debate this with you, so considering your responses, and the first video effort, I'm done here. I won't be watching part 2.

edit on 29-12-2013 by caitlinfae because: typos

I disagree with you entirely. He should defiantly continue taking everything with a grain of salt for the simple fact that opinions are like assholes.

People judging his questions are understandable, but people judging his personality are being bigger dicks than he ever came close to being. If joking light hearted interviews are what come natural to him, that's what he should do. He is not Ted Koppel and didn't present himself as such.

Have you ever seen how Steven Colbert "greets" his guests, by running around the stage in a celebration of his own ego? His first few guests where put off by it. I remember watching the show with someone who thought he was being a dick for not letting these big name interviews talk, but as the show went on the reputation grew people understood and came to enjoy and respect it.

I love making music, some hear it and think I'm trying to hard, cause I make music you have to pay attention too, others hear it and act like I'm the best they ever heard. I take both opinions with a grain of salt, mostly because I'm sure of the direction I'm going and I'm pretty confidant that I'll get it right. I'm not going to cave in and change my natural approach for what others think I should be. I defiantly don't agree with people who think it's great either. I take both with a grain of salt.

Not to be hypercritical, but that little piece of paper on the desk in front of you would have been a great place to write the title of the hearing.

What is his difinition of a presence?

Why should they care if we blow ourselves up or not?

Why come here to observe? Do they feel like our parents?

Although I'm all for people's opinion, when Mr. Gravel makes a bold statement like ".....it's the leaders who can't handle it", might I suggest following up instead of assuming its simply from fear of losing power.

That said, you have a handsome face and charisma which is key for TV, I'm just not sure who the target audience was for this.

I have been a professional journalist (daily newspapers) and science writer (at research universities) since 1983 and have been following UFO issues for nearly that long.

I found the interview to be harmless. It contained absolutely no news, but it was certainly not malicious in any way.

Gravel's statements were largely based on his personal feelings, not on information he might have been privy to while serving in Congress. As such, I don't find them especially valuable or credible.

I noticed that he alluded to a mainstream media conspiracy … I find it hilarious that people who have never worked a day of their lives in a newsroom often speak so knowingly about the alleged conspiracy. I can tell you for a fact that there is no active conspiracy -- the media are way too disorganized to perpetrate such a thing.

Now, there may be a passive conspiracy that goes something like this: "If you ever, ever try to write an enterprise story about UFOs while working at this newspaper no one in this organization will take you seriously and your career will die on the vine … "

At the same time, it is nearly impossible for the media to write anything hard-hitting about UFOs because there have been no truly great inside sources -- whistle blowers on the scale of Eric Snowden.

The interviewer astutely makes note of this, but Gravel responds with a non-answer … suggesting that there have been leakers worthy of a comparison to Snowden.

There has been plenty of anecdotal information, and some scientific evidence in the form of radar data, but nothing that could be likened to hard, documented evidence.

Then, toward the end, he alludes to a Zionist plot …

Whenever anybody starts alluding to Zionist plots my BS meter goes off …

I don't think Gravel has any real inside knowledge about the subject.

take off background music next interview...
why ppl add music in the background when someone else is speaking is beyond me... z

tryin to manipulate or stimulate ppl's brain? lol

I found the interview to be harmless. It contained absolutely no news, but it was certainly not malicious in any way.

Gravel's statements were largely based on his personal feelings, not on information he might have been privy to while serving in Congress. As such, I don't find them especially valuable or credible.

That's basically what we're attempting to get across here; that the interview was just fluff, when the subjects, both Sen. Gravel and UFOs, are both worthy of at least an attempt at seriousness. After all, ridicule and joking around aren't about to get us to the 'truth' and that is what Josh very seriously in several posts now, has said he is after. He even posted a video telling us he was going to be our 'savior', I guess in the 'truth' realm. Believe me, Sen. Gravel could have said a lot more if he had been given the opportunity and the right questions were asked.

Here's the way I look at it: If someone puts an interview like this up, and it's say an hour long; and 1000 people watch it, then it's taking up 1000 people/hours of time... 2000 hours being a full time work schedule for a year. So you're taking up half a year, you could say. Multiply the length of the interview or the number of people watching and pretty soon you're talking a very large investment of many people's attention.

Shouldn't it be useful? Shouldn't the time of your interviewee and audience be valued and respected? Some have mentioned Jon Stewart and Colbert but they are both political and news commentators and comedians on top of their game, with probably large staffs of writers, and I'm sure all comments and jokes are carefully vetted. Colbert isn't my style most of the time but I find Jon Stewart bitingly on point and often hilarious.

This was more like just goofing around and feels like a helluva wasted opportunity. As someone who watched the entire CHD, I'd love a couple hours with Sen. Gravel or any of the other people involved, and you can bet I'd come prepared.

As far as the 'proof' out there available to the general public or anyone not sworn to secrecy by national security non-disclosure 'agreements' (enforced BY force) we can only work with what we have. Photographs are either too blurry, or so clear as to be suspicious themselves; we've heard tell of radar tracings showing as early as the 1940s craft doing speeds and G-force turns that contemporary technology was incapable of; and we have military whistleblowers coming out by the hundreds now thanks to Stephen Greer's efforts; we have to either trust them to be telling us the truth now, or wonder why they were trusted with such things in the past as the control rooms of nuclear missile silos and piloting both commercial and military aircraft. I can't help but wonder why there aren't more journalists out there who realize a true deep investigation into this subject is Pulitzer-worthy; but then we circle back around to the ridicule problem, the loss of job problem and the actual threat to you or your family problem. Why all the deadly secrecy if there's nothing to it?

ThePaisan

I have been a professional journalist (daily newspapers) and science writer (at research universities) since 1983 and have been following UFO issues for nearly that long.

I found the interview to be harmless. It contained absolutely no news, but it was certainly not malicious in any way.

Don't take this the wrong way but there is probably more than one reason newpapers are a dying medium.

I noticed that he alluded to a mainstream media conspiracy … I find it hilarious that people who have never worked a day of their lives in a newsroom often speak so knowingly about the alleged conspiracy. I can tell you for a fact that there is no active conspiracy -- the media are way too disorganized to perpetrate such a thing.

So you are saying the CIA and military intelligence has NO presence inside the newsrooms? No pressure whatsoever on stories and the propagation of lies and half truths?

I don't think Gravel has any real inside knowledge about the subject.

Well you wouldn't know from watching this video.

I'm not bothered whether you agree with me or not...but at no time did I call anyone a "dick" or an "asshole", or even hint at that level of unevolved name calling. However, several times I did point out that constructive criticism, which is what many people have been offering, should perhaps be taken on board sometimes, or at least acknowledged. He has been asking for feedback since his first post, and seems disinterested now.

He should defiantly continue taking everything with a grain of salt

Do you mean "defiantly", which is root of the problem perhaps...he will do what he likes and doesn't care about feedback...or "definitely". I'm not sure. Aside from his personal manner, which some of us love, and some find just irritating, there is plenty to say about the actual content of the interview. Not much response to that either.

mahatche

caitlinfae

Notheycant
Not mad at any of these comments, I take everything with a grain of salt.

And here's the problem, or part of it...it's admirable that you kinda have a thick skin, but not so good maybe that you're not taking harsh but interested and well meaning constructive criticism on board even long enough to acknowledge it. Actually, that's very rude in my book. Everyone who has been critical here, has had something useful to say,and is genuinely interested in what you're doing whether you realise that or not. Your attitude to us, maybe backed up by others, seems to be, ok, I'm a happy bunny, I'm gonna clown about and be silly and *youthful*, I'm not hearing all you have to say if it's slightly negative, and I'll deal with it with more vacuous superficial comments and just ignore the bloody lot.

I didn't once suggest that you make the interview more formal, in response to the person who maybe got their posters mixed up. That wouldn't be right for you.

I have better things to do with my time than debate this with you, so considering your responses, and the first video effort, I'm done here. I won't be watching part 2.

edit on 29-12-2013 by caitlinfae because: typos

I disagree with you entirely. He should defiantly continue taking everything with a grain of salt for the simple fact that opinions are like assholes.

People judging his questions are understandable, but people judging his personality are being bigger dicks than he ever came close to being. If joking light hearted interviews are what come natural to him, that's what he should do. He is not Ted Koppel and didn't present himself as such.

Have you ever seen how Steven Colbert "greets" his guests, by running around the stage in a celebration of his own ego? His first few guests where put off by it. I remember watching the show with someone who thought he was being a dick for not letting these big name interviews talk, but as the show went on the reputation grew people understood and came to enjoy and respect it.

I love making music, some hear it and think I'm trying to hard, cause I make music you have to pay attention too, others hear it and act like I'm the best they ever heard. I take both opinions with a grain of salt, mostly because I'm sure of the direction I'm going and I'm pretty confidant that I'll get it right. I'm not going to cave in and change my natural approach for what others think I should be. I defiantly don't agree with people who think it's great either. I take both with a grain of salt.

edit on 30-12-2013 by mahatche because: (no reason given)

reply to post by caitlinfae


reply to post by signalfire


So is it safe to assume that now that you 2 have critiqued this ad nuaseum that further videos will be free of this overly sensitive whining? THAT is about the only thing I can think of that I would like to see in these topics.