But Apologizing for the group as hole I think not, we have every right to be guarded and defencive..We as " prepper's " have had our words twisted and edited in various ways in the past, some of our members right here ! have had it done to them ; by the C.B.C. and other outlets....
And the fact that "we " as a group came at " susanmburgess " a little strong just says we are fed up and stand together, and will no longer tolerate being portrayed as paranoid and or crazy....

Thank you Traveller, very well stated!

Yes, I really can't apologize for anyone else, I can only speak for this prepper, so I stand corrected on that.

It is true that there is reason to be cautious, but you will have a far better chance of winning people over by expressing yourself with courtesy & restraint, once the conversation takes a rude and sarcastic turn, you've got little chance of enlightening the other person despite your very well founded points. You may win the word war, but in the end, it's not a victory worth having. Better to mind your courtesy, give the person the benefit of the doubt, state your case as graciously as possible, and let the outcome take it's course... I speak from experience on that, having been on both sides of the equation at various times in my life.

It's just important to remember that Susan is her own person with her own opinions, not necessarily circumscribed by the CBC. And even if her opinion was negative toward preppers or prepping, the best hope to win her over is with good reasoning delivered in a respectful manner. That is the best way to get people to reconsider anything. And to jump to the conclusion that she's beyond accepting the many well founded reasons for "commonsensing" (I like that!) is really an injustice to her.

Just overlooked the first two statements that we were rude and do not know how to reply or act around media, but it just got too much to hold back.
Only one response was rude, most used the term CBC.. a few responded directly to Susan and they were polite.

same as others who worked for the CBC, yet the posts were initially pretty hard on her...

The CBC is not deserving of an apology, Susan was not attacked, although there was ONE rude comment, it was never followed up on. Most offered suggestions, asked question and posed informational question and answers, one person was quite in depth and quite on the money. One positive interview out of numerous erroneous and attacking interviews, TV spots and documentaries is not a good track record at all.
...

Some has been blatantly — and painfully — ignorant of the media's roles and ethics, and other views, spot on.

This is not kindergarten and we do understand the stance posed by the Government and Sponsor controlled media, some here in this thread have had numerous training sessions and background with regards to the media.

Traveller.. Decent interview, The Question's were plain and to the point, The Host was polite and the individual that was interviewed did an excellent job in answering the Questions..
But Apologizing for the group as hole I think not, we have every right to be guarded and defensive..We as " prepper's " have had our words twisted and edited in various ways in the past, some of our members right here ! have had it done to them ; by the C.B.C. and other outlets....
And the fact that "we " as a group came at " susanmburgess " a little strong just says we are fed up and stand together, and will no longer tolerate being portrayed as paranoid and or crazy....

At no time did OldTimeGardener attack or be rude, they did pass along a lot of information and background and used her name Susan Directly.

I consider this topic over unless Susan comes back in with a follow up.

Much of what was written had a rude & snarky tone to it, along with sarcasm. It wasn't the right way to treat Susan, she deserves an apology. That's my final word on it.

We are judged by the company we keep. My dad told me if I hang with killers then I am viewed as one. Should I believe that there may be a good killer in the bunch and assume that is the one that wont kill me, or shoot first. Its easy to have a bleeding heart after the fact.

I was wrong to come off harsh (if it was me everyone is beating around the bush about) and I realize that after the fact. I am sure from now on there is nothing to worry about our image being portrayed as eccentric or nutty. Susan I hail you as the rectifier of all media. You have redeemed the media as a whole and no criticism will befall you or any of your colleagues from me in this forum. Now lets all sleep with both eyes closed.

Much of what was written had a rude & snarky tone to it, along with sarcasm. It wasn't the right way to treat Susan, she deserves an apology. That's my final word on it.

I agree. There's no problem with being cautious, but being rude is a different matter.

I also agree with Graviore, and I'd like to expand a bit on the point I think he's making (and if I'm incorrect, please accept my apologies, sir). If one of us acts like a paranoid, reactionary nutbar, it paints the rest with the same brush. I would optimistically suggest this is not how we want to be perceived.

...

Some has been blatantly — and painfully — ignorant of the media's roles and ethics, and other views, spot on.

This is not kindergarten and we do understand the stance posed by the Government and Sponsor controlled media, some here in this thread have had numerous training sessions and background with regards to the media.

I did not suggest anyone was in kindergarten, and if that was how it was taken, I apologize. I was merely responding to what I read, which was people asking uninformed questions (requesting questions up front, etc.) and making accusations about the interviewer's motives. This is not the best way to deal with these types of requests. It further reinforces some people's estimation that we're just survivalist crazies.
I would foresee many more of this type of interview coming in the future, and the better people know how to respond, the more positive the outcome for those of a similar mindset.
If anyone has any questions about this, they can PM me. 🙂

Much of what was written had a rude & snarky tone to it, along with sarcasm. It wasn't the right way to treat Susan, she deserves an apology. That's my final word on it.

I agree. There's no problem with being cautious, but being rude is a different matter.

I also agree with Graviore, and I'd like to expand a bit on the point I think he's making (and if I'm incorrect, please accept my apologies, sir). If one of us acts like a paranoid, reactionary nutbar, it paints the rest with the same brush. I would optimistically suggest this is not how we want to be perceived.

...

Some has been blatantly — and painfully — ignorant of the media's roles and ethics, and other views, spot on.

This is not kindergarten and we do understand the stance posed by the Government and Sponsor controlled media, some here in this thread have had numerous training sessions and background with regards to the media.

I did not suggest anyone was in kindergarten, and if that was how it was taken, I apologize. I was merely responding to what I read, which was people asking uninformed questions (requesting questions up front, etc.) and making accusations about the interviewer's motives. This is not the best way to deal with these types of requests. It further reinforces some people's estimation that we're just survivalist crazies.
I would foresee many more of this type of interview coming in the future, and the better people know how to respond, the more positive the outcome for those of a similar mindset.
If anyone has any questions about this, they can PM me. 🙂

I recently gave an interview to the Canadian Press and I think it went quite well.
There were a few things I asked before giving the interview that cleared the air on how the story was being presented.
These were the same things I asked of this person requesting an interview.
When the media gives vague responses to these questions, or refuses to answer, then the intentions are suspect.
This is not an uninformed position but comes from loads of personal experience and many discussions with others who have given interviews.
If an interviewer takes offence to having their motives questioned, then that is a HUGE warning sign for me...and should be for others as well.
I never expect an interviewer to actually give the questions in advance, but it is their reaction to the question that I am looking for.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with your idea of the best way to handle them right here in the thread so we can all learn.

Denob, Gravlore, RoNot, anyone else, I don't know if you were talking to me, and I should reply, so excuse me in advance if you've already had your fill of my opinions...

As I said in one of my earlier posts, at different times in my life I've found myself on either side of the equation - in other words, I've been sometimes sarcastic and snarky, at other times, I've been on the receiving end of it. I say this because I'd rather not embarass anyone or pretend to be holier than thou.

What I've learned, often through a good pie in the face, as well as by receiving advice from truly kind and merciful people, is that the mess we find ourselves in will only be deepened by hostility in it's various forms - subtle and more blatant. The best way to pave the road to something better is to start with just the simple courtesies we all want and avoid the disrespect we all hate. That does not mean that you have to let people walk over you, nor does it mean that you have to compromise your bottom line.

So one of the things that might apply to this situation is a simple straightforward explanation,

"I'm sorry, based on previous CBC reports on preppers, I feel apprehensive to give an interview and for that reason I will decline."

Or "Based on previous CBC reports on preppers, I am concerned that any interview will be edited in such a way as to make preppers look like nut bars, maybe we could talk and reach some agreement that would give me some assurance of a fair reporting of the facts, but failing that, I would have to decline.

Or "Well, to be honest, I truly think that the preppers network and CBC could do a great service for Canadians by enlightening them on the topic of prepping, We have some truly interesting endeavors and personalities, however before we go any further we need to discuss this and reach an agreement so that we can be reasonably assured orf a fair portrayal in the media."

What I believe is that you can maintain your guardedness, you can be straightforward or reserved, you can decline with or without giving reasons, or enter into further dialogue to explore the possibilities, all equally with courtesy. That doesn't mean that you are oblivious to the fact that someone might have a bad intention, they very well might. In that case you might have to firmly turn down their request.

I just want to repeat that many times in my life I have failed at this very thing, but I'm trying to amend myself and simmer myself down a couple notches so I won't embarass the Lord too badly by calling myself one of his followers.

I truly think that some of you folks have an exceptional ability to communicate most excellent and interesting manner, good rational reasons for prepping, and I think that could be of benefit to others if the word could go out in a way that ensured you it would not be misconstrued.

Shucks, you could have Denob and Farmgal teamed up with the government agency responsible for promoting emergency preparedness and doing public service announcement type tv spots. Now don't freak out, they could just show a silhouette and use a voice scrambler to protect opsec. I'm teasing of course, at least a bit...
Or just send them a diy you tube spot filmed at home. 😉 And whenever the folks at home got bored of Denob and Farmgal, we could send Gravlore & Wild E video or audio or whatever. I'm trying to be a bit humorous, play along ok...

We should really be working on a sitcom!! that's it! I knew if I talked long enough, something truly exceptional had to happen ")

"Or just send them a diy you tube spot filmed at home. And whenever the folks at home got bored of Denob and Farmgal, we could send Gravlore & Wild E video or audio or whatever. I'm trying to be a bit humorous, play along ok... "

Denob and Farmgal ok. But WildE and myself are so pig headed in our own way it may be more like Battlebots than Little House on the Prairie.

Hmmmmm, may be fun though 🙂

"Or just send them a diy you tube spot filmed at home. And whenever the folks at home got bored of Denob and Farmgal, we could send Gravlore & Wild E video or audio or whatever. I'm trying to be a bit humorous, play along ok... "

Denob and Farmgal ok. But WildE and myself are so pig headed in our own way it may be more like Battlebots than Little House on the Prairie.

Hmmmmm, may be fun though 🙂

Hmmm...A DIY video...
You just may be on to something there!
Food for thought!

Gravlore 😆 😆 😆

Denob, after listening to some of your Sat programs, I know you'd be a great spokesperson for the cause. Why don't you get in touch with the gov't department in charge of prepping and see what can come of it?

If you're worried about opsec, have a little fun with it, patch together a disguise, might be a good addition to your BOB anyways.

I'm actually disappointed that the producer (Susan?) didn't follow up with anyone on any of your ideas... but then I'm ever the optimistic one in any room. It would have made for good Reality TV... not the Jersey Shore that NatGeo puts out. (which I enjoy for the entertainment value only)

we should write a sitcom!