Fox reporter wants to speak with me
- 04-03-2004, 07:44 AM
imo, fox is not "incredibly conservative". fox is, otoh, biased to the right. no more than, for example, CNN is biased to the left. and i wouldn't call CNN "incredibly liberal". also, imo, CNN moved a bit rightwards to compete with the new kid on the block.
the problem with "lay" reporters reporting on scientific issues (like prohormones, etc.) is that they almost never get it right. this isn't an issue of political bias, as much as overall ignorance, etc. frankly, in any field where i know a lot, i find the lay media accounts to be pretty worthless - with some exceptions.
i brought stossel up for a reason. he IS good at traipsing through the bull and understanding more complex issues, imo.
the reality is this- the industry has shot itself in the foot, to a large extent. i do not think prohormones should be scheduled, however, the industry has been grossly irresponsible in not
1) limiting sale of same ot adults
2) even possibly sponsoring legislation to criminalize the act of providing pro's to a minor.
the sports lobby is powerful, but much of the push is from the "do it for the children" crowd. imo, it IS wrong that kids can buy prohormones (let alone methylated ones) OTC. that is insane. i don't think ANY dshea supp's (with the possible exception of water soluble vitamins and stuff like that) should be sold to minors. of course, minors can buy dangerous drugs like tylenol, however, the impulse to "take a lot for added effect" is minimal compared to the impulse to "get hyooge" from gulping a whole bottle of m-1t for some HS kid.
- 04-17-2004, 12:10 AM
Good move on your part, and it's good that you sent over the studies. Problem is the media in general loves "dirty laundry" just like the song says. I fear they would have turned that interview against you.
Of course we all know it's complete bull**** but sheople know only what they are told.
- 04-17-2004, 09:32 PM
we need someone to go on record to say they've used the stuff and it didn't cause any (significant) adverse side effects. the guy should also say that no one (to the best of his info) has ever died or been hospitalized b/c of andro products. preferably this person should be in good shape (in case they do a background check) and articulate.
he should emphazise the potential health benefits of andro products (weightloss, fitness, potential anti-aging benefits for elderly and their use as alternatives for expensive pharmaceutical sex aids such as viagra). the person keep it real too and that admit andros can be harmful if abused and that people have to follow the instructions on the label. 1-test and methyls should not be mentioned unless mike brings them up first.
the interviewee should in addition emphasize the importance of a HEALTHY diet and hard work in the gym so they don't get portrayed as some gym desperado looking for the magic pill. it should be stated that andro products are just a small part of the game, but they still have some benefits and there's no reason for government regulation.
in fact, governement regulation hurts the consumer's right to choose and will also hurt small business owners at a time when the economy really does not need it. lastly, the person should also talk about the fact that professional atheletes really do not use andro products b/c they will show up in drug tests and that's why these atheletes just use real steroids and try to beat the testing or just look for designer steroids that the regulating orgs have not designed tests for yet.
main thing is to come across as a regular american that is just trying to lead a healthy life and put on a little muscle in the gym - hopefully people can relate to that.
04-19-2004, 12:36 AM
O'Reilly might be good. He's in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. At least it shows his propensity for open thought.
04-19-2004, 07:16 AM
John Collins is your best bet in this for legal info, and I would think if done threw him it would be in our best intrest to get our side told...Like someone else said, make the case that p/h p/s without dedacation, hard work and proper diet will not make a monster out of a sissie.......
04-19-2004, 04:25 PM
04-19-2004, 05:15 PM
04-20-2004, 02:32 AM
The problem is that even if the reporter goes in with the intent to do a fair story, the editor is really the one in control. Often times they are just telling you want you want to hear so you will do the interview. You could do an hour interview with him in print or television and they could use 5 seconds of it or one quote. They could have you saying prohormones are safe followed by the music from Halloween with a reporters narrative talking about liver failure and road rage. The only way you can be sure you are going to be going treated fairly would be to do a live show or an O'Reilly type of format where there is some kind of debate going on that they don't edit. The only way to protect your self would be to tape the interview and transcribe it and compare it what they actually reported. The problem is that if they do a take out piece on you ( which is highly likely) the damage is done. Even if you do cover your ass it's not like they are going to print it or report on it. The main stream media misquotes and distorts all the time and rarely do you hear about it. The corrections are on the last page of the paper ( it's almost non existent on TV) and they sure as hell won't print a letter to the editor from you.
That being said, the supplement companies and consumers need to start fighting back. The first thing they need to do is to bypass the mainstream media. The only type of show that should be done is either a debate or one on one format. A talk radio blitz and taking out ads in papers would be a good idea. Who ever is being interviewed should be intelligent and articulate (or not stupid enough to brag that pro hormones are better than or equal to steroids). The main focus should be on distancing prohormones from steroids, economic issues, and consumer freedom. They should probably start lobbying the government again as well. Unfortunately this takes money and is largely up to the companies.
For consumers the best thing they could to is organize in their states and start bothering their representatives allot.If the consumers are well organized Informing their local reps. that they have formed a voting block and will be watching how they vote it will get their attention.
Keep in mind this is all useless if the FDA steps in and banns it like ephedra which will probably end up happening. The FDA is just as much a threat as the bills out there.
Similar Forum Threads
- By AvgHomeboy in forum Post Cycle TherapyReplies: 2Last Post: 03-29-2011, 05:36 PM
- By A_I_Sports_Nutrition in forum Company PromotionsReplies: 67Last Post: 02-02-2011, 04:35 PM
- By CopyCat in forum MMAReplies: 2Last Post: 01-08-2010, 01:11 PM
- By OmarJackson in forum PoliticsReplies: 29Last Post: 08-05-2006, 02:03 PM
- By sifu in forum General ChatReplies: 11Last Post: 01-26-2004, 12:03 AM