Why Is the "New York Times" Soft on Bad Cable Archaeology Shows?

12/11/2018

Last week, I reported that Megan Fox’s new Legends of the Lost brought in disappointing ratings when just 429,000 people tuned in, according to preliminary figures, putting it in the same Tuesday ratings class as Motor Trend TV’s Bitchin’ Rides (424,000) and CNBC’s The Profit (430,000). The numbers are roughly average for Travel shows, and just two-thirds of those of those of new episodes of Mysteries at the Museum, the highest-rated series on the network, but on par with day-side and early prime reruns of Mysteries. Nevertheless, despite the manifest lack of public interest in her program—representing 0.1% of the U.S. population—the media remain fascinated by… I almost said “a movie star doing a cable show about weird shit,” but that isn’t true. Zachary Quinto is also a movie star doing a cable show about weird shit, to three times the ratings, and almost literally nobody in the media cared. The media are fascinated because a certain set of editors are hot for Megan Fox and titillated by the idea of an attractive woman doing “man” stuff like archaeology.

How else can we justify this weekend’s New York Times interview with Fox in which a giant glamor shot of Fox in full evening hair and makeup and a low-cut dress with her bosom heaving forward illustrates an interview with Times reporter Kathryn Shattuck ostensibly about history, science, and the “dirty” work of historical research and archaeology? Just try imagining their recent article about Alien Con illustrated with a boudoir photo of Giorgio Tsoukalos on a bearskin rug. It’s not happening.

I don’t know why this strikes me as so offensive, especially since I found Fox’s show to be a pointless waste of electrons, but it bothers me that of all the popular approaches to history, science, and archaeology that appear on TV or in print, even so venerable an institution as the Times still prioritizes LOOK AT THOSE BOOBIES over either the value or the importance of work in question.

Anyway, the Times continued its trend of soft-pedaling Ancient Aliens and UFO claims, a trend that I find both strange and disconcerting. I’m not sure why the Times has such a soft spot from the History Channel’s cult hit, but it routinely now depicts the program as “controversial” but not fictitious, fraudulent, false, fantastical, or any of the other more accurate adjectives that would describe its mixture of demonstrable lies, illogical interpretations, and flirtations with racism, Nazism, and Russian propaganda. It’s a show that all but literally told viewers to worship Satan, and it still gets treated like it’s Mr. Wizard with actual wizards.

Fox explained to the Times that Ancient Aliens not only influenced her but was in fact the cause of her belief in the ancient astronaut theory:

How did “Ancient Aliens,” a controversial show about prehistoric extraterrestrial visits to Earth, inspire you to create your own series?
I had never read Erich von Däniken’s book [“Chariots of the Gods”], and that’s the first time I had ever heard of the ancient astronaut theory [which posits that extraterrestrials brought their pyramid- and monolith-building technologies to Earth during prehistoric times]. It expanded my consciousness about things I had always questioned and provided a steppingstone to keep exploring. (brackets in original)

This is disturbing at many levels, but it gives the lie to the claim that (a) Ancient Aliens is harmless “fun” and (b) nobody watching the show really takes its claims seriously.

The Times also confirmed something I intuited from watching her show, namely, that while she has extreme beliefs, the Travel Channel and the production company stacked her show’s production team with people better versed in mainstream science to keep the show from going too far off-brand in the direction of Ancient Aliens. That doesn’t stop the self-identified uneducated Fox from claiming to be able to intuit the truth about history better than scientists and scholars can investigate it themselves:

You’ve said that your theories are alternative, while your production team is more science-based. Have they ever gone, “Megan, you’re off the wall?”
They don’t say that I’m off the wall because they’ve been around me enough to see that even if they perceive things I say to be kooky or strange, they always come true. So I’m kind of a revered psychic at this point with everyone.

And yet somehow she didn’t see that her program would be an expensive, unwatched boondoggle!

Speaking of which… tune in tonight for her investigation into “sonic healing” at Stonehenge. Ugh.

46 Comments

Joe Scales

12/11/2018 10:25:15 am

"The media are fascinated because a certain set of editors are hot for Megan Fox and titillated by the idea of an attractive woman doing “man” stuff like archaeology."

Really? So what... are we back to dirty old white men here to fulfil your wishful thinking to place blame. Could it be more an issue of liberal politics and favoring those who embody it? Oh no, that can't be. Your confirmation bias compels you to make the Fringe all about racists, Nazis and old white men. Even when the facts that demonstrate the Fringe's hold on all political spectrums kick you right in the face.

Elizabeth Stuart

12/11/2018 04:58:01 pm

Personally, I don't care who brings me the story. There's nothing wrong with old, white men. Many are fantastic truth tellers, are quite entertaining and knowledgeable. I rather have them, than an airhead revered for the way her boobs look in an evening dress.

An Anonymous Nerd

12/11/2018 07:53:21 pm

Mr. Scales's post has basically nothing to do with the article he replied to. Indeed so far it seems to me that his post makes sense in only three possible contexts. First is that he's trolling. Second is that he's not only very easily offended but actively is looking to be offended.

Third is a combination of both.

-An Anonymous Nerd

bezalel

12/11/2018 10:32:40 pm

Talk about confirmation bias and "liberal politics".
Scales is politically triggered; very intensely, which is why he is always bringing up "bullshit politics", when his conservative bias is threatened.

Gilbert Soup link

12/11/2018 10:50:02 am

What do you mean ‘so what’? are you a dirty old white man too?do you want to excuse this behaviour because you do it too?

12/11/2018 12:56:24 pm

I probably shouldn't have used the ellipsis, as the "so what" wasn't meant to excuse prurient impulses of the aged. Meant more like a conversational, "so what are we back to".

I'm sure you still want to call me names, so by all means... rage on.

Gilbert soup link

12/11/2018 08:50:43 pm

Fair enough. Not sure that I called you a name, rather, asked you a question concerning why you got triggered.

12/12/2018 01:26:25 pm

What's with the buzz words? Triggered? Is that some sort of way to imply imbalance? Is it only people you disagree with who are triggered, or might something I've post "triggered" you?

As far as name calling, I refer you to your loaded question in regard to whether or not I'm a dirty old man. Below you also grouped me with an idiot vector. But you know... sticks and stones, and all that. Just would hate to see you join my cabal of ankle-nipping cyber-stalkers who see only what they wish to see, use google for brains and pepper the majority of my posts with mostly ad hominem in response. A good look in the mirror might be more fitting for them, but they'll never be good sports nor will they ever comprehend that partisanship necessarily separates them from truth. On that level, they are lost.

Try being more reasonable next time, and maybe we can play.

Denise

12/11/2018 11:18:24 am

Joe,

"Really? So what... are we back to dirty old white men here to fulfil your wishful thinking to place blame. Could it be more an issue of liberal politics and favoring those who embody it? Oh no, that can't be. Your confirmation bias compels you to make the Fringe all about racists, Nazis and old white men. Even when the facts that demonstrate the Fringe's hold on all political spectrums kick you right in the face."

Ummm wow, I saw no mention of any of the above in the post. Just a general commentary of the media loves to sex things up. Which I believe is not a liberal or conservative, white or not, or even old guy thing....its a media thing and has been for a long time.

12/11/2018 01:03:32 pm

Perhaps you missed this part then Denise:

"Anyway, the Times continued its trend of soft-pedaling Ancient Aliens and UFO claims, a trend that I find both strange and disconcerting. I’m not sure why the Times has such a soft spot from the History Channel’s cult hit, but it routinely now depicts the program as “controversial” but not fictitious, fraudulent, false, fantastical, or any of the other more accurate adjectives that would describe its mixture of demonstrable lies, illogical interpretations, and flirtations with racism, Nazism, and Russian propaganda."

Jason is frustrated that the New York Times doesn't make the same connections as he does and wonders why. Two words to help him along: New Age

12/11/2018 01:20:22 pm

Wow, Joe. Way to COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact that they used a sexy glam shot to tout a show purportedly about ARCHEOLOGY. Didn't even use the Lara Croft style of dressing, but an EVENING GOWN. Which, you know, kind of implies they don't really think Megan Fox embodies anything but a vagina. She sure as hell DOESN'T embody "The Left."

Tom mellett

12/11/2018 02:10:18 pm

But, by the same token, Jason’s image of Giorgio on the bearskin rug kind of implies that that Jason doesn’t really think Giorgio Tsoukalos embodies anything but a penis. (OK, phallos since Giorgio's Greek)

12/11/2018 03:47:47 pm

Sorry V, but we don't slut-shame here. Ms. Fox gets to choose how she wishes to display her wares.

Bezalel

12/11/2018 10:43:16 pm

Scales:
Conservative Christian fearmongering of anything "New Age" is WAYYYYYYY anachronistic now

Get out of the eigthies.
eightys?
eighties?

80's

But I recognize the connection now

Liberal conspiracy, infiltrating higher education and media, hooking up with "New Age" anti-christian philosophies, right?

People who actually complete degrees (and continue) are the brainwashed ones, right?

Honi soit qui mal y pense

12/12/2018 01:01:24 am

Your right wing colour is clear. Admit that, and go on to say everything you say is the job you do. That’s fine, you can do that, but you’re tainted by that idiot vector

12/12/2018 09:36:57 am

Gilbert, you were just being reasonable above, so why veer off course and join with the myopic partisans who see any criticism as membership to their political opposition. That's not how discourse should work. Jason expressed dismay and confusion with why the NY Times wouldn't adopt his mindset in this regard. I answered him, and apparently the obvious which escapes him also befuddles his defenders. Ask yourself why... then try to be more independent. You know... like me.

12/12/2018 03:26:50 pm

"Sorry V, but we don't slut-shame here. Ms. Fox gets to choose how she wishes to display her wares. "

If you think that, then you obviously don't understand how MAGAZINE COVERS work. No, she didn't get to choose what she would wear for the photo shoot. The MAGAZINE chose it. And it's not about how revealing it is, it's about how goddamn inappropriate an EVENING GOWN is to a show that is supposedly about ARCHEOLOGY. Like I said, they could have used Lara Croft styling, which would at least be on par with Indiana Jones styling--and just as if not MORE revealing than an evening gown. But no, they went with a shot that screams "beauty pageant," which is pretty much THE stereotype of "the only thing that matters is how attractive you are to men."

You're still trying to ignore that blatant sexism, though, aren't you?

"But, by the same token, Jason’s image of Giorgio on the bearskin rug kind of implies that that Jason doesn’t really think Giorgio Tsoukalos embodies anything but a penis. (OK, phallos since Giorgio's Greek) "

No, actually. Jason is saying that the New York Times is NOT portraying Tsuokalos in a way that turns him into nothing but a penis, while they ARE doing that to Fox. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills could use a brush-up. The key phrases are "Just try imagining..." and "It's not happening." IE, Jason pointed out the inequity of the situation.

12/12/2018 06:47:15 pm

"You're still trying to ignore that blatant sexism, though, aren't you?"

No V, but I'm shocked that you would go so far as to disempower a woman over her own choices. As if she's what... a child? For shame V. For shame.

Machala

12/11/2018 11:43:32 am

Rupert Murdoch built a multi-billion dollar media empire on the premise that tits &ass, combined with salacious and outrageous stories, plus sports, sells newspapers. Toss in extreme politics, and you've got the icing on the cake !

12/11/2018 12:27:02 pm

Recall that the full acronym for Tom deLonge’s “To the Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences” is TTSAAS.

A tad subliminal of course, but nonetheless there for all with ECB = Erotic Confirmation Bias (pre-Internet “dirty minds”) to see.

However, what is not subliminal at all is Jason’s evocation of the famous Burt Reynolds centerfold in Cosmo Magazine from 1972
“ . . . a boudoir photo of Giorgio Tsoukalos on a bearskin rug.”

Since Jason knows that such an image cannot be unseen, it then may actually serve as his own subliminal way of “telegraphing” — no, dare I say “telepathing” — his palpable (but not yet palpitating) man-crush on Giorgio.

12/11/2018 01:22:47 pm

Orrrr...you could be missing the point completely, sicne the point is that Megan Fox is being served up on a sex platter, while Tsoukalos was treated like a human being, for no better reason than she has tits and he doesn't, since they're advocating the SAME THINGS.

Accumulated Wisdom

12/13/2018 04:25:32 pm

What about Joe Namath in pantyhose? That was way more disturbing than Burt. You can't unsee something.

American Cool "Disco" Dan

12/15/2018 05:09:16 am

I am very much enjoying this. Sitting back and quietly chuckling.

Priceless Defender

12/11/2018 12:16:00 pm

"Megan, you're off the wall"

This is a bit confusing. Ms. Fox in Supergirl attire hangs on my stepson's wall.

Makes one wonder...What got rubbed three times to make this wish come true?

In all seriousness. My stepson finds
Ms. Fox attractive, and still won't watch the show.

Jockobadger

12/11/2018 03:30:43 pm

Hi Jason,

I'm writing because I guess I'm a bit surprised that you're surprised/shocked/caught-off-guard by all of this. I barely know who she is, but she's certainly attractive and that, plus her quirky beliefs make this one a natural for the "producer" set.

The popularity of AA, Hunt for Bigfoot, etc., has never been more pronounced (possibly helped along by the Old Gray Lady's recent UFO articles!) So, grab yourself the kooky New Age issue du jour, add in a dollop of trollop, and you got yourself a series!

I might suggest that having an attractive young woman encouraging the male middle school set to pursue "STEM" subjects, no matter how hokey/far-fetched, is not necessarily a bad thing? I can't believe I just wrote that - nope, don't believe it. No STEM involved here.

Sorry. I'll show myself out.

12/11/2018 04:28:41 pm

"dollop of trollup'...roflmao

Good one, Badger!

Personally, I've a bigger issue with the plot to nearly every Christmas Movie being advertised. With few exceptions, most are about a bleach blonde woman looking to marry into money. Seriously, it is like "Gold Digger" by Kanye West has become a Christmas song. Seems like every station thinks the only way a woman can make it through life, and be happy is to marry the prince/Santa's son/Owner of toy company/
random rich dude.

Jim Davis

12/11/2018 03:50:10 pm

"How else can we justify this weekend’s New York Times interview with Fox in which a giant glamor shot of Fox in full evening hair and makeup and a low-cut dress with her bosom heaving forward illustrates an interview with Times reporter Kathryn Shattuck ostensibly about history, science, and the “dirty” work of historical research and archaeology?"

Is it possible Fox showed up to the interview dressed and made up that way? Does the Times normally dictate how their interviewees are to dress?

Jason Colavito link

12/11/2018 03:59:31 pm

Clearly she was an active participant. Typically, for profiles like this the paper and the actor's manager/agent agree on a shoot and an outfit.

12/11/2018 04:54:35 pm

Then I think you have your answer - Megan Fox wants to present herself as a sex symbol and Giorgio Tsoukalos doesn't. And the Times (and other media outlets) doesn't judge their decisions or the reasons for them.

I think what you find offensive is the fact that Fox and many other women (and not a few men) energetically portray themselves as sex symbols. You might want to reflect on whether being offended at lifestyle choices of which you don't approve is worthwhile.

David Bradbury

12/11/2018 05:59:48 pm

It's not about the lifestyle choice so much as the underlying cynicism. Megan clearly knows that the show itself is not going to do much for her career, but the initial publicity just might, if she plays to her strengths (which don't include archaeology).
Meanwhile, in the UK (population about 1/5 of the USA) a no-nonsense archaeology show, 'Digging for Britain' is getting live+7 ratings around the 800,000 mark.

12/11/2018 08:05:28 pm

When I saw the picture this episode of "This American Life," specifically the David Sedaris segment, came to mind.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/97/death-to-wacky

"David Sedaris tells true stories of photographers who try to take pictures of him which will make him seem more "wacky" than in fact he is, interlaced with a fictional depiction of what one of these photographers is like. (14 minutes)"

-An Anonymous Nerd

12/12/2018 06:20:06 pm

V, it sounds like you got a boner and don't want to admit it.

12/13/2018 04:28:59 pm

Postscript to my earlier mention of the series "Digging For Britain". Yesterday's episode cheekily featured a Canadian detectorist who came to England for a holiday and almost immediately found a pot containing 200 Tudor and Stuart coins.

[If this comment appears 2 or 3 times, blame traffic lights and store fronts]

12/12/2018 03:29:54 pm

1. Yes, the Times DOES normally dictate how people who are to be PHOTOGRAPHED for a cover like this are to dress, and often even provide the clothing. 2. Even if she'd CHOSEN to show up that way, the Times did still have the right and even the obligation to say, "This isn't the right outfit for this photo shoot, please change into this." It's still sexism on the part of the Times to choose THIS look over something more appropriate.

12/12/2018 06:52:35 pm

Come on V. If the New York Times wanted to promote you, you'd have your emerald gown at the ready. Now quit disempowering Ms. Fox. It's insulting to women.

12/12/2018 06:54:59 pm

" Yes, the Times DOES normally dictate how people who are to be PHOTOGRAPHED for a cover like this are to dress, and often even provide the clothing."

This is far from an area in which I can claim any expertise but I find this very hard to believe. The Times just told her to get her hair styled a certain way and put on this cocktail dress and push her boobs out just so like she was some model they hired? What else could they have insisted on? Cut your hair? Where this wig? Put this ring through your lip? We want this tattoo on your cheek?

"It's still sexism on the part of the Times to choose THIS look over something more appropriate."

"Something more appropriate" is a euphemism for something I, V, approve of, correct? Your opinion is the gold standard in these matters, right?

12/12/2018 07:12:07 pm

V is talking out of her oh, so ample ass. She has no idea how it went down.

12/14/2018 01:34:45 am

"Now quit disempowering Ms. Fox. It's insulting to women."

Bullshit politics

Scales, we can recognize your forked tongue double-speak from a mile away. I expect you to stop this. It make you sound like an ignorant Rush Limbaugh tool.

Half this country is still in an intellectual and cultural backwater due to the political/religious right desperately attempting to remain relevant.

Stop

12/14/2018 08:00:45 pm

Though I doubt I'll shake this imbecilic cyber-stalking ankle-nipper with the truth, here I go anyway, just in case anyone else is paying attention:

For the record, I am neither a Republican nor a Christian. Not a Limbaugh fan either.

Case in point however, that if you ever challenge a partisan's sensibilities, they will assume you're their political opposition and will paint with their broad brush accordingly. Truth doesn't matter when it comes to partisan politics.

12/11/2018 08:01:27 pm

What a disgusting fluff piece about a Fringe history show, with a misleading headline to boot. ("Megan Fox on Why She Won’t Speak Out in the #MeToo Movement." A topic that isn't mentioned in the piece as often as is the Fringe stuff.)

As to the title question: "Why Is the "New York Times" Soft on Bad Cable Archaeology Shows?" They think they'll get hits, readers, revenue, etc., out of it. And they think it's harmless. Presumably because they don't realize how much journalism is hurt when a society decides it no longer needs accurate information about, well, anything.

-An Anonymous Nerd

Riley V

12/11/2018 08:53:43 pm

If the display of Ms Fox’s most ample talent doesn’t bring in viewers it must be bad writing.

Brady Yoon

12/12/2018 11:59:50 pm

Everyone seems to be conclude "it's aliens" from the premise "ancient painting with guy wearing something that looks like a spacesuit."

Maybe our ancestors wore specialized suits right here on earth. Buckminster Fuller said "Earth is a spaceship." He's right. Maybe these figures aren't spacemen or aliens but are just "earthsuits."

The purpose of an "earthsuit" would be to create a local microenvironment within the earthsuit that is superior to the ambient environment in terms of physical performance. For example, some professional athletes spend a few hours each day in hyperbaric chambers because the higher oxygen partial pressure allows them to recover more quickly.

What if our ancestors figured this out too, and instead of just spending a few hours per day in a hyperbaric chamber, they just decided to put on an "earthsuit" and reap the advantages of a hyperbaric microenvironment 24/7?

12/13/2018 12:08:00 am

To clarify, this is the analogy: a spacesuit is worn by modern humans so that they can create a local microenvironment that is hyperbaric relative to the ambient vacuum, where the difference is one of survival vs. death. An earthsuit was worn by our ancestors so that they could likewise create a local microenvironment that is hyperbaric relative to the ambient standard atmosphere, where the difference is not one of survival vs. death, but thriving and superior physical and mental performance vs. average performance. The brain and body, under hyperbaric oxygen pressures, is more alert, and recovers faster from physical exertion.

Could explain why these beings were considered to be gods. Maybe these "earthsuits" endowed them with superior and even superhuman physical and mental capabilities.

Jim

12/14/2018 11:05:44 pm

Sure,,, and Frank Herbert was a historian.

Another ugly nerd

12/13/2018 04:32:48 am

I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick calling this a gender issue. People are always interested in attractive people talking about nerdy stuff. You see the same thing with Terry Crews and Vin Diesel. I’d argue the reason you didn’t see it as much with Zachary Quinto is because he came to prominence playing Spock. And I definitely remember seeing stuff online about how sexy the new Spock was, though in fairness I recall Leonard Nimoy, rest in peace, being a sex icon back in the day.

Seed of Bismuth

12/13/2018 10:07:54 am

Or you know Zachary Quento's name recognition is far less then Megan Fox's. And the NYT was paid to promote this one not other.? Nope, got to be because of boobies cause that the only way women get anywhere.

God your such an ass.