anyone willing to do on-camera interview about ayahuasca?

[Bread Filter]

I hope they don't fail to highlight that consumption is already outlawed. I wouldn't want 7 news responsible for encouraging kids to illegally consume these legally available plants. Now that would be news worthy!

 

That's a really good point.

[ballzac]

I was curious as to what they were referring to when they say it is banned in other countries. Is the growing of Caapi illegal in some countries? Obviously it's use is illegal in many countries, but it is here too, so if that's what they are referring to then their point is invalid.

[Yeti101]

I was wondering the same thing ballzac - they have conveniently left out all the countries (including the USA) where growing it isn't banned.

[Yeti101]

The journo featured in the ad, Mike Duffy, is best known for his ch 7 'exclusive' where he claimed to have smuggled a detonator into the Commonwealth games village in Delhi: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3023099.htm

So we can expect quality and balanced journalism from him, for sure.

[Ethos]

Intentionally leaving out the name of what drug/plant they are refer to and intsead saying "IT" and showing flashes of every entheogen under the sun keeps the public guessing and assuming the whole ethnobotanical community is a problem (the dangerous drug enticing our youth). I must say most of the youth I know would find going out and getting blind drunk and waking up in a pile of their own vomit more enticing then researching info about caapi.

BS channel 7, pure smear campaign. If you had taken the time to do a proper investigative peice like T suggested you would get an unbiased quality piece of investigative journalism that australians would be able to watch and make an informed decision on whether they think it is such a terrible thing.

Also the ad makes it look like they're making out as though entho vendors/ and webstores are the same sort of thing as silk road

[goneski]

I just watched the promo.. What. The. Fuck.

[in_spirit]

I have to add my voices to those who don't have mainstream media on tap. It would be good to get a permanent link on to youtube or something, it would be good if they have it online somewhere where we can post our comments / well thought out critiques.

We should also consider getting together to film some kind of response, a documentary perhaps of the lives of those who live "undercover" or pushing the boundaries of society in a spiritual way. I know a good cameraman if I can persuade him (via some recompense perhaps, to drag him away from TV work) and possibly someone reasonably famous involved in plants and film and doco's (but not ethno's) who I was talking to a few months ago, though I think he's trekking in South America or somewhere doing a doco on the history (economical value wise) of plants. Chuck ideas on this thread, I've never done anything like this before so I would need some help - or someone who has time to do this might be better positioned than me. I'm pretty sure someone like ABC would show something really well done, even if just by amateurs.

It looks like the first salvos in a new skirmish are about to be thrown and we need to prepare our own opening salvo in response.

 

I would have to agree with filming but not at first to respond, to film what is actually said, these programs lie, and it will be edited in the worst way, have a true recording as a response if they turn it into a story of lies then post it online for the truth to be heard.

[ErraneousHerbalist]

Just remember we can always make a formal complaint.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/contact-complaints

Watching this again this morning makes me feel worse than my hangover...

[ballzac]

If your complaint relates to a matter covered by the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice, the network is required to investigate your complaint and provide you with a substantive written response within 30 working days.

News and Current Affairs Programs

4.3 In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:

4.3.1 must broadcast factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having

regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the

program;

4.3.1.1 An assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be

determined in the context of the segment in its entirety.

 

I didn't realise they were required to provide accuracy. How the hell do they ACA and TT stay on the air when their entire business is about misrepresenting things and running baseless scare-campaigns?

Anyway, it will be easy to accumulate a list of factual errors in their story. More difficult would be to spot a correct statement.

Obviously they will not admit any wrongdoing, but if they are required to provide a response, this will at least give us more to work with, particularly if media watch gets involved, we could provide the responses and show that they fail to address our concerns or continue to show complete ignorance of the topic and the facts.

[Yeti101]

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tipoffs.htm

[gtarman]

Definitely. I say anything we can do should be done. It might be worth having a lawyer look through that Code of Practice so that our complaint won't have loopholes in it or be at all "legally ambiguous". You can guarantee that they'll have some very high-paid lawyers on staff to look over complaints and make them disappear (how else would they get away with all that crap?).

I think it would make a brilliant story for Media Watch if we were to lodge this complaint, show them the behind-the-scenes nonsense of the sensationalism BS Channel 7 is pulling here - all the factual inaccuracies, and especially how they were offered 7 HIGHLY qualified Phd.'s to interview, but instead just went ahead and made up what they thought would be a good headline regardless of the facts.

[gtarman]

Although, I think rather than all of us sending in one of these tip-offs individually and off-the-cuff, maybe we should sit down and construct our argument properly so it looks nice and legit, and not just like a bunch of disgruntled forum-users having a whinge? haha

[Yeti101]

Getting on Media Watch might prolong the media exposure. That said, if the shit hits the fan due to Ch 7, it won't make it any worse.

[chnt]

definitely should get some good info and counters to that story to send to media watch.

media watch is the shit

[ballzac]

Getting on Media Watch might prolong the media exposure. That said, if the shit hits the fan due to Ch 7, it won't make it any worse.

 

We can't stay silent forever as they slowly erode more and more of our freedoms. It's easy to stay silent when there is no light on the subject, but when the media and/or government choose to 'blow the lid' (lol), it's really time to get the word out there and show their bullshit for what it is.

[whitewind]

I aim to spend most of tomorrow creating a decent draft response to what I think they might state, and I am sure they will say something like "the owner of this business refused to comment" when it's known to all of us that Torsten has just been in hospital, and if there is anything non-factual we should present it to media watch. It would be good to keep this thread open so we can all make a list, as I'm sure I will miss something as I rapidly scrawl notes. I would like to send something to media watch and any other complaints department, as well as posting on their website (if they have comments open).

Assuming that it is the hack job we fear...

[Shamanistic]

Although, I think rather than all of us sending in one of these tip-offs individually and off-the-cuff, maybe we should sit down and construct our argument properly so it looks nice and legit, and not just like a bunch of disgruntled forum-users having a whinge? haha

 

I agree, maybe after the show has aired we should start a new topic compiling a fist of factual inaccuracies in their report and then when we've got something which looks professional pin it and direct the media watch team to the topic for a more in-depth analysis. Maybe we could also try and point out some short falls of some similar news paper articles which further supports out case of blatant propaganda being published about these plants and the people who use them. We could also get a survey going of the types of people who use this forum including age range, job status, interests etc which may help state our case that we are different from your everyday junkies, then again looking at all you guys I don't know... I think we have a chance to make some noise and if we don't act on it now we would be very foolish. Coupled with Greg Kasarik's radio interview this evening I can see that if we play our cards right we could make quite a stir.

I'll start compiling a list of publications on ayahuasca and mescaline since I think this is the two substances they will target in their assault.

[planthelper]

we can expect, that some of the other channels, will copy ch 7.

we might start brainstorming already.

i'm willing do donate money for a solicitor, to sue them for deformation.

another thing would be to make our own report.

every doctor said, nobody can help my child, but this drug which has been safly in use for probably thousands of years in southamerica, miracously healed my daughter.

[ballzac]

Let's stick to verifiable data. There's no point in requiring the use of verifiable facts by the media if we are not going to hold ourselves to the same standards. There are plenty of anecdotes out there about the healing properties of ayahuasca, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of research on it.

"Ayahuasca cured my cancer" is a statement that would require factual evidence to back it up. Most likely evidence like that does not exist, regardless of whether such healing has occurred or not.

"Most ayahuasca is used in either a spiritual or medicinal setting, and the use of ayahuasca as a recreational drug represents a tiny fraction of ayahuasca use" is a statement of fact that can be backed up using peer-reviewed research, and most likely data from government agencies.

[ballzac]

As for claims they will make (or context they will omit)...

They will most likely claim ayahuasca to be a potential party drug. I wouldn't be suprised if they use some stock footage of a club or rave, complete with lasers and glo-sticks, while saying it's going to be the meth of this decade.

They will fail to mention the amount of time and effort required to grow a small plant bought online into a large vine that can support even occassional use.

They will fail to mention the time-consuming preparation, and unpalatability of brewed caapi.

It is unlikely that they will mention that most users consider ayahuasca to be completely unsuitable for use as a recreational drug.

It's not clear from the promo whether they are talking about the ayahuasca vine itself, or the brew of the same name which typically contains psychotria. They seemed to be talking about a single plant, but in describing the effects as being just like lsd, that might be more appropriately applied to the dmt than caapi (though anyone with any knowledge will say that even they are substantially different). It's quite possible that they will only mention the caapi plant, but out of ignorance will refer to the effects of the brew as though they are all intrinsic effects of caapi.

[planthelper]

nupe, who controlls the media controlls everything.

me direction is not cancer, zac, but the abilety of aya, to help or overcome traumas, and to end or better, addictions.

and the proof, is myselve.

[ballzac]

Well, cancer was an example. But my point is, that if you are your own proof, then 7 news can be its own proof. It means nothing in public discourse. Were you part of a study carried out by a qualified researcher and published in a peer-reviewed journal?

The facts are on our side. The data is on our side. The science is on our side. Let's be precise and leave no holes in our arguments, and we can demonstrate how ridiculous their propaganda is. If we stray from that path, it just becomes like a "he said" / "she said" kind of battle, and will not help us when we're in a climate where people are inclined to believe the wod hype at face value.

[CβL]

Well there's a decision to be made on the breadth of a rebuttal:

Do you stick to only the plant in question, referring to it out of context?

The context is the "war on drugs". It's really an elephant in the room, and again the data of how much of a failure (in fact a detriment) it is, is also on our side. Whether or not invoking it in a rebuttal is a good idea, I don't know.

This view would necessarily and implicitly need to state that the status quo is effed (a big challenge, but entirely possible and one that allows further discussion tacked onto this one)

What directions is our argument going to follow?

-Spiritual

-Privacy

-Legal precedent

-Other

[ballzac]

Ayahuasca is often used to help people reflect on their lives. It's a shame the 'journalists' didn't partake as part of their research. Maybe they would have reflected on their worthless lives that they spend trashing innocent people and cultures as part of their job.

[CβL]

Ayahuasca is often used to help people reflect on their lives.

That would sum up what I achieved and looked for in my usage of various plants.