I thought it was important to get his side of the story, so the letter below is posted with permission from Steve Campbell.
To: Grassroots TV Board of Directors
From: Steve Campbell
Subject: My Reason For Supporting Grassroots TV and the airing of “Judea Declares War on Germany”
My association with Grassroots TV began while The Roaring Fork Peace Coalition felt it needed a venue to reach as many people as possible to show important political and anti-war films from a variety of outlets and sources. After RFPC was hesitant and then unreceptive to showing 9/11 films, I had no choice but to form my own group, Citizens For 9/11 Truth. When an opportunity for a time slot became available to show 9/11 films on Grassroots TV, I jumped at that opportunity.
As with the RFPC, Citizens For 9/11 Truth has been instrumental in helping to educate the citizens that receive Grassroots TV Channel 12. The service and importance of this kind of programming cannot be overstated to helping bring awareness to important issues of our day; awareness that helps determine the understanding and vision of how our world works and what part we play in it.
Our country and the world at large are under enormous pressures from an array of forces that are undermining its health and stability. The videos I air are challenging for some to wrap their minds around, but citizens need to have thought-provoking information to challenge the generalized indoctrination that we all go through whether it is by our educational system, regular broadcast tv, radio or print media.
The invaluable service that Grassroots TV offers for programming such as mine must not be hindered. To accept only a single representation of any story as undeniably true and not open to question is antithetical to a healthy and active mind and a free and open society which we need to keep alive so that informed decisions that benefit the general welfare can be applied.
There have been stereotypical comments made and assumptions drawn about me and this current film, unfairly and with malice I believe. I have kept my email list, which includes Mr. Masters, updated on all the recent letters to the editor, newspaper articles and editorials plus some articles written over the internet from those who support the airing of this video.
Everyone who writes on this issue is speaking his mind with candor. This is what free speech is all about. As adults, we have learned how to handle criticism of our ideas. We don’t outlaw free thinking speech. If something is wrong-headed, the sensible approach is not censorship, but better, more thoughtful speech and writing.
If we are going to make this world a good place in which to live for future generations we truly need to understand each other better. Honest, meaningful and sensible communication is certainly one path to that end. It will take hard work, an ability to listen and a determination to resolve issues thought unresolvable.
If you would like to engage in conversation with me about any of this, I would be open to suggestions as to possible arrangements to facilitate that meeting of the minds.
Steve Campbell
Reckless,
Do you know why Mr. Campbell hasn’t contacted the Con Man to make an appearance on his show? The caller Aaron implied that the reason we hadn’t heard from Campbell was that the Con Man hadn’t tried to get in touch with him. It seems to me that the ball is in Campbell’s court, and I’m sure more than a few people would like to hear his side of the story.
Wharf,
Yeah. Let me clear that up since I was involved in the misunderstanding.
Michael emailed me to get Steve’s contact info on Monday. I didn’t get around to reading it until Tuesday afternoon, after the show in which Aaron accused Michael of lying. Steve believed the accusation since he hadn’t heard from Michael, and as a result he wasn’t keen on being interviewed.
I’ve since straightened things out with both Michael and Steve, but now Steve is reluctant, because he feels Michael is biased and might lead the interview in a way to make Steve look bad.
Having had my phone calls to the show go astray because Michael throws me a curveball – as in “Why won’t you read The Looming Tower?” – I understand Steve’s concern.
gee, I found it in the phone book
Yeah, that would’ve been the fastest way to contact him.
BTW in addition to the letters to the editor, here’s what coming to the defense of Steve Campbell has brought me:
http://apps.aspentimes.com/at_polls/story-comments.php?sid=71014007&mode=thread&order=0
WARNING! (to Wharf Rat) Do not read before bedtime; contents may upset the stomach.
I tend to go with this
http://www.aspendailynews.com/article_22251
Aside from Steve Campbell’s letter above, that’s the sanest thing I’ve seen written (publicly) on this matter!
To all:
I am EXTREMELY disappointed Steve Campbell has not called me back. I don’t want to read to much into it, but if he knows “Con Games” then he knows I will (a) challenge him; and (b) give him every opportunity to have his say.
What more could he want?
As for the notion of lying, I would merely point out that Aaron from Eagle is himself a Holocaust denier, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and a person who considers me right-wing. The chances of all three of those things being true are less than minimal.
But his ire does show what drives some of these movements: absolute cluelessness. Has Aaron ever been in a boardroom? Has he ever met an executive–or a United States Senator, for that matter. His criticism bespeaks dark rooms and fuzzy logic and a belief that “the man” is out to get him.
I don’t, however, dismiss everything he’s saying, but it’s more than a little interesting that he always regresses to the personal attack. With facts at a premium, there’s literally nowhere else for him to go.
Thus I’m a liar…but so are six million Jews. Who would you believe?
I’m not calling you a liar, Michael. That’s why I came to your defense by asking the question in the first comment. However, when you responded on-air to Aaron, you said “we’ve been trying to get a hold of him [Steve] and he hasn’t gotten back to me.” That is a deceptive comment, making it sound like Steve was avoiding you when he actually had no idea you were trying to reach him. Also, as I pointed out earlier, you could have called him–his number is in the book, and you have been quite able to find and contact people within a minute or two when you are motivated.
All things said, I’d still like to hear Mr. Campbell’s perspective. I hope he appears on the show.
[WARNING! (to Wharf Rat) Do not read before bedtime; contents may upset the stomach.]
No worries, I’m happily watching the Rockies game hoping for the sweep but secure with the knowledge that a) if they lose, I will get to go to the game tomorrow night; and b) if I get to go to the game, I won’t freeze my arse off like I did at the AWESOME game last night
That is a great opinion by Sheldon Fingerman. I just don’t understand how these (mostly anonymous) commenters can direct such hateful comments toward you, Reckless, when they are claiming to be doing it in the name of eliminating hate speech. Sad, very sad.
I’m going to combat the hate speech by giving some love to Rockies rookie shortstop Troy Tulowitzki. If you all haven’t seen him, you are missing a star in the making! As I wrote that last comment, he made two of the best back-to-back plays imaginable. He’s the second coming of Derek Jeter–you know, the guy that plays for the Yankees and cured the Con Man’s interminable “suffering”.
Wharf,
Sounds like you’ve got enough material for an entire post about your fanatic Rockies obsession! Looking forward to hearing more.
Go Rocks!
Steve’s phone number is in the phone book and works.
Any honorable journalist or talk show host who wants and demands fairness would have done the research to open up a phone book.
Mike went on air, defamed Steve/mocked him, and then said he tried to get him on to get the other side of the story.
just who is getting the con job?
Yo Info,
Michael did try and get in touch with Steve through Reckless and through numerous invites on the show. Sure he could have found the number in the phone book, but that doesn’t negate the fact that he had tried, though vainly, to get in touch with Steve. So he didn’t lie. As for Steve, he wants to air his garbage and will write letters, but doesn’t appear to have the gumption to have an honest interview about his beliefs….typical….
ok you win.
[Steve... doesn't appear to have the gumption to have an honest interview about his beliefs]
Steve was a guest on Jerry Bovino’s show. He’s not shy about sharing his thoughts, though he tends toward slow halting speech which doesn’t make for good radio.
Knowing Steve personally I think it’s hilarious that people are making him out to be an evil monster. It’s just as ridiculous as the way people portray me. And you who’ve met me and conversed with me here know what I mean.
the fact that the Conman cant pick up a phone book tells the real story.
I am not saying he is an evil monster…I just think he is someone with an agenda…like someone else I know here. ;P
Anyway, I guess he didn’t convince Grassroots to let him show it as its splashed all over the local rags on the front page.
Do we in this area have nothing else going on that that would make front page news….pitiful.
What fascinates me most about this issue is that not that this sorry subject has garnered this much attention, but the outright hypocrisy of the left here.
Many are ready to die on their sword for the cause of free speech when it comes to Judea Declares War on Germany, but broach the subject of “Intelligent Design,” which I find as fallible as this film for many of the same reasons, and the same people are ready to take up arms for censorship.
If you opposed the dissemination of ID, how can you support airing Judea Declares War on Germany?
Cheers,
I don’t know…I think it falls along the same lines as the Global Warming crap…when faced with actual numbers that dispute it is caused by humans…it’s always…yeah, but what if you are wrong…the war costs such and such…anything but sticking to the issue…talk about junk science. The liberals deal with emotions…it’s all they have…they sure can’t stick with an issue for long…its like a fish out of water…flip flop…flip flop…. : )
I’m all for the airing of programs on intelligent design and/or programs disputing global warming science. I think you are confusing school curriculum with public television broadcast, Mitch.
I would not advocate teaching intelligent design or Holocaust revision in public schools, based upon academic deficiencies in those positions. However, I would advocate teaching that there exists intelligent design and Holocaust revision perspectives and encourage students to examine those perspectives as part of a lifelong exercise in overall critical analysis. If one denies that fringe analysis exists, a key opportunity to understand a fundamental aspect of human society is lost.
I really don’t have a problem with the GrassRoots TV decision not to air “Judea Declares War on Germany”–that’s their prerogative. The reasons they gave, however, were pathetic. Labeling the film “obscene, repugnant, and inciting hatred” is an absolute cop-out and fumbles a great opportunity to develop a consistent, principled rationale for airing criteria.
Unfortunately, the message I got from their decision and the treatment of Mr. Campbell and Reckless (who, by the way, are NOT joined at the hip as far as I can tell) is that if one chooses to discuss the Holocaust, Zionism, or even Israeli foreign policy, that person should expect to be attacked personally and will likely be branded as an anti-Semite, hate-monger, or worse.
Even worse, I am not surprised that we have such problems that pertain to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If the deep-seated insecurity and hatred can spill over into personal attacks on people like Reckless, it doesn’t bode well for improvement anytime soon.
Absurdist food for thought du jour:
1) Is Condi Rice an anti-Semite based upon her comments yesterday supporting the creation of a Palestinian State? Is she an anti-Zionist?
2) Are Christians who reject evolution engaging in “hate speech” toward secular evolutionists based upon their attempts at historical revisionism without merit? How is that argument any different than the argument that Barry Schochet presents?
I am appalled at the dummying-down that this GrassRoots TV argument endured, and I’m talking primarily about quotes in the paper and in Letters to the Editor. Thank goodness that at least Mitch and Alpha can argue against showing the film without attacking Reckless personally!
[personal attack...]
Yea… I read the ANONYMOUS posts on the Times website yesterday. I don’t know Steve, but if he’s anything like G, that kind of public vilification is out of place.
You assert the difference between ID and the film is proximity to the public classroom. In the sense that part of GTV’s mission is to “enrich the lives of… fellow citizens,” I contend the educational obligation of both GTV’s mission and the public classroom makes this more of a similarity than a difference.
Nevertheless, I do see your point.
[Is Condi Rice an anti-Semite based upon her comments yesterday supporting the creation of a Palestinian State? Is she an anti-Zionist?]
Condi? How about Hillary?
[2) Are Christians who reject evolution engaging in "hate speech" toward secular evolutionists based upon their attempts at historical revisionism without merit? How is that argument any different than the argument that Barry Schochet presents?]
So a Priest, an Imam, a Rabbi, and a secular evolutionist were riding in an airplane…
Cheers,
…and the airplane only has three parachutes? How does it end? I want the USA Today version! And please don’t tell me the purveyor of “hate speech” gets thrown out of the airplane, or I will feel persecuted.
[...please don't tell me the purveyor of "hate speech" gets thrown out of the airplane, or I will feel persecuted...]
It’s worse… the pilot is a lawyer and the Imam knows how to fly…
Cheers,
Hey, my father is a lawyer/pilot/deacon. How’s that for a complication? I’d probably just try to land the damn plane.
Rat, infowars:
You guys are driving me crazy.
The minute I had Steve Campbell’s phone number on Tuesday I called him.
He never called back.
End of story.
Best, Con Man
Michael,
Relax. If you’re like me, you haven’t cracked a phone book for years. I found Steve’s number in about ten seconds on WhitePages.com.
Cheers,
I-Con:
WE’RE driving YOU crazy? You make it a point to rip into Aaron as one of the features of your show this morning and you have the audacity to say that’s the “end of the story.” You have absolutely no accountability for the things you say on your show, and any time one of us calls you out on something, you either a) ignore it; b) patronize us by responding with an “I’m so clever” comment; or c) reformulate the criticism on-air in a manner that completely mischaracterizes the critical position.
Don’t worry, I’m well beyond expecting anything of substance from you. While I once really embraced your perspective as one of the few willing to address unpopular topics (i.e., criticisms of the war in Iraq), somewhere along the line it appears to me that you became more concerned with advertising, the “success” of your blogs, and avoiding any meaningful criticism by couching your positions within the context of your self-definition. And it certainly doesn’t help that you forgot how to listen to people.
Now boys, let’s all calm down.
Remember, we’re all doing the best we can with what we’ve got. None of us has any idea what it’s like to host a daily radio show. It can’t be easy to try and fill everyone’s needs and expectations every day. Cut the Conman some slack. He didn’t lie when he said he was trying to get Steve on the show. Just because he didn’t use your preferred method doesn’t mean it doesn’t count.
Anyway, this is all my fault. If I’d just read my email and responded sooner, none of this would’ve happened. So I APOLOGIZE on behalf of everyone who is hurt and offended.
Please, let’s stop this petty bickering and get back to discussing matters of more importance.
How ‘bout them Rockies!!!
So just keep on telling everyone you are a “liberal” instead of actually putting a position out there for public examination. Keep on dismissing arguments with off-hand remarks. Keep telling people that a book you read is the definitive authority on any given manner, refuse to discuss the topic with them until they read said book, and then tell people on air that your opponent won’t read the book because she “disagrees” with you. Keep on telling the caller who wants to talk about over-population that “there is evidence that population control is bad for the economy”, hang up on him, and then embrace the topic a month later when it is brought up by one of your superstar one-trick pony “experts.” And by all means, refuse to acknowledge that you said on air that Campbell hadn’t called you back before you even contacted him. No, take it one step further and ridicule the person for being a conspiracy theorist.
I have been appreciative of the opportunity to be one of your “fifty” bloggers, of which eighty percent are inactive or written infomercials (and there’s nothing deceptive about that comment), but quite frankly I really have very little to write about any more. In my eyes, you have contradicted yourself so often that your entries and comments suffer from a pronounced absence of credibility. While I’d like to participate in a quality forum with a LOCAL flavor, the imprimatur of your disingenuous con techniques is a huge distraction.
It’s obviously best that I step away (again) so as to not contribute to the malaise I am complaining about. So, if you consider this to be a personal attack and delete it from the forum, consider it a personal farewell with the hope that…nevermind. Otherwise, thanks to everyone on the forum for reading my garbage and sharing your thoughts.
Oy!
Can’t we all just get along?
Wharf, regardless of your personal animosity towards Michael, you belong here with us. Without you, these debates would suffer an imbalance that even the most accomplished Tao master could not compensate for.
Please don’t go!
PS have you tried turning off your radio?
[PS have you tried turning off your radio?]
If Rat’s contribution to the conversation is so germane, and in my opinion it is, why do you recommend this action?
Cheers,
Obviously Wharf’s issues with the Conman stem from comments made on the air. Our blogs aren’t necessarily dependent upon the topics discussed on Congames, so maybe a little break from the show will help restore Wharf’s qi.
Hey, it’s all your fault, what with that damn jumpback shindig that sucked me back in! Just kidding…. All right, I said my peace, and you undoubtedly have better things to discuss.
A wise bird once told me (a few minutes ago) that maybe I have expectations that aren’t being met. Upon reflection, that’s probably pretty accurate. So I’ll try to take ownership of my expectations and see if I can drum up some qi enhancement–does that come in a pill form?
Catch you all on the flip side if and when I (think I) have something meaningful to contribute.
Oh wait….did I miss something….you have to have something meaningful to blog here?? Now you are setting your expectations too high Wharf!!!
I don’t think I need to defend the Con mans radio show, in listening to it, I think he does let those get in their say no matter what it is…be it that since it IS his show he gets in the last word…but it makes for entertaining radio and thats why many people tune in. I suspect the majority of repeat callers are also bloggers here, people who want to be engaged, not just entertained.
I think G is right and while Congames does flow over to the Aspenpost at times, the majority of the posts here do not correspond to the show. Though Congames does take up topics brought up on Aspenpost.
I personally find that blogging comes in waves with me. Lately I have been way too busy to really put fingers to the keyboard and write a blog, though I have things running around in my head begging to be posted…thus my posts have of late been in response to other blogs and not generative in nature. I am sure this winter will give me ample opportunity to aggravate Wharf, G, Infowars and a host of others…
So Wharf, don’t be gone for long if you take a break…while we don’t agree on much..ok, anything, I do enjoy reading what you write and thank God everyday that I am a conservative knowing you are out there. : P
Rat re comment #29:
I would just point out a couple of things to you:
– No commercials, no show. That’s the way it goes. I’ve tried hard to have sponsors relevant to the content of the show (Code Green, Health Matters). Just FYI, this approach would have to be called innovative in the extreme in the radio market.
– Aspen Post is a huge success because it gives people like you (and me) a voice they would not otherwise have. You also have complete access, by the way, to actually CALLING Con Games and engaging in an actual real-time conversation. You choose not to do so for reasons that require no explanation. It’s your call, so to speak. But I don’t act like I won’t talk about things just because you don’t want to.
– Bloggers come and go and that’s fine. When I met Arianna Huffington, gues what she told me: “You should blog.” If you run a blog, you are always looking for content, and your core group will always be key. But in the last month or so, we’ve added Frosty Woolridge, Jim Vail, Kristin Walla, aspenoakes, and others who have asked to come on and blog. That’s pretty cool I think.
– As a blogger, you should give yourself more credit for what you’re contributing, even though you like to continuously slam me for somehow suppressing debate that you yourself continue to engage in. Between “Con Games” and Aspen Post, the debate hereabouts has gotten bigger and better. Even you MIGHT concede that.
– Just as an example re books, I’ve tried to read every war that’s come out about Iraq, including RISE OF THE VULCANS, FIASCO II, Bremer’s autobiography–at least a half-dozen in all if not more. To say I take one book and say it’s definitive is to ignore all the previous reading behind the statement. You can criticize me for many things, and you do, but you can’t say I don’t make every effort to do my homework. I take issue with that because I work to hard as it is to get to the bottom of things. Who else do you know who is plowing through a book on No Child Left Behind (TESTED, very good by the way) or THE JUDAS GOSPEL, GOD’S NAME IN VAIN, GOD IS NOT GREAT, the Sam Harris book and so on and so forth. I have two big thick books on the CIA on my bedstand. Please, if only on the book issue, give me a friggin’ break.
– To say the show’s no good any more is, of course, a matter of opinion. But to somehow charge that I’ve changed my approach is disingenuous. As an example, take today’s show on immigration. Eddie Soto, a progressive, had literally 25 minutes of airtime: I agreed with about 5 percent of what he said–but he had his say. Tell me another program on commercial radio–or television–that even approaches that depth. And we’re doing it with immigration every Wednesday.
I would never tell anyone to stop listening, and my suggestion to you is that you not only listen, but call in and engage in the conversation. Call me on what you don’t like–literally.
I don’t see how taking your marbles and going home, mumbling all the way, does any good.
Keep the faith!
Best, Con Man!
I-Con,
I appreciate your response. Don’t worry, however–I already lost my marble! Fortunately, Reckless talked some sense into me and I realized I’m just suffering from unmet expectations. That’s something I can probably deal with.
For the record, my beef with you is based upon my perception that you have a disconnect between that which you offer and that which you deliver. For instance, you call your show “Con Games” and not “The Michael Conniff Show”. Which is it? You would say the former, and I would say the latter. My criticism is not that it need be one or the other–just don’t purport to be one and act out the other.
What I hear is you conning listeners and bloggers–the exact opposite of that which you promise–so I speak out about it. While I recognize my perspective is merely one viewpoint, it is a perspective that clearly impedes my ability to gloss over its ramifications. The reason I’m pocketing my marble is that I’ve said enough and I don’t need to waste anyone’s time bashing you further.
Best of luck with everything!
Conman,
I have defended you to the nth degree, but speaking as one who has been the butt of many a degrading rebuttal, I take issue with your choice of photoclips to advertise this blog at Wharf’s expense. Rat extermination? Please! That’s a low blow even for the Conman,
Rat:
Now we can put this to rest.
On more than one occasion–on dozens of occasions–I have pointed out that one of the precepts of “Con Games” is never to accept things at face value–and that includes what you hear from me.
That’s the irony of the title of the show. Not obvious to you but not a secret, either. Thus “Con Games” and NOT “The Michael Conniff Show.”
Perhap your notion is that I promise and don’t deliver is based on a misunderstanding of the basic premise of the show: don’t be coinned by ANYONE, including me (and Wharf Rat).
Best, Michael!
PS to Sue: Thanks for picking up on the rat poison. The guy who runs the blog has to have some advantages, doesn’t he?
OMG–I completely missed the point of the show. You don’t mean that the basic premise of the show is to con people; rather, it is to warn the audience that they should take care to NOT get conned–brilliant! How did I possibly miss that? And all this time, by pointing out how you con your listeners and bloggers I am misunderstanding the basic premise of the show…glad you were able to put that to rest!
“Rat, infowars:
You guys are driving me crazy.
The minute I had Steve Campbell’s phone number on Tuesday I called him.
He never called back.
End of story.
Best, Con Man”
Yeah maybe tuesday you did, but on Mondays show you said you tried to get Steve on air to get his side of the story when that was a lie. You continued to bash him and then when it was brought up by a caller that you lied about talking to Steve, you bashed the caller.
And now you say “End of story” this is why some people dont find you forthright.
OK now you guys are driving ME crazy!
As one who has been falsely accused, I’m going to attempt to defend Conman again.
Let me offer two pieces of evidence:
First, refer to my comment #2.
Second, what I heard Michael say was; “We’re trying to get Steve Campbell on the show.” NOT; “I’ve called Steve Campbell.”
Technically hunting down Steve’s email address through me qualifies as trying to get him on the show.
It appears that this is a classic case of -pardon the pun- “telephone.” Everyone thinks they heard Michael say something different.
The only way this case will be solved is if Michael presents us with the transcript of that portion of the show. Referring to my second piece of evidence above, if he said the former and not the latter…END OF STORY!
As for defending the nature and quality of Michael’s show, my position on it is; Love it, like it, or leave it. It is what it is.
Michael,
Declaring that “anything goes as long as it doesn’t get personal” is, as a principled AspenPost blogging policy, pretty solid as far as I’m concerned.
Defending your use of the tub-o-rat poison pic as the tease for your rebuttal to Wharfrat’s comment by advising, “never accept [tub-o-rat poison pics] at face value” seems to me like having it both ways, which you can, since you’re the dictator around here. Among other things, being dictator means you can be as benevolent or malevolent as you wish. Fortunately, you and the raft of AspenPost bloggers have in general aired on the side of decorum and good taste. Still, as offensive the pic may have been, I got quite a snort out of it the other day, even if it was at WR’s expense.
No, you did not intend bodily harm toward WR by displaying the symbol of death to all creatures Muridae. This is more like running up to the fence and barking, which, when you think about it, is about as devastating an intellectual salvo as one could reasonably expect.
In truth, I found your comment a substantial reply to WR’s criticisms. I don’t know whether your goals for Post Times Media will ever dovetail with WR’s sensibilities, but as WR himself will tell you, they don’t have to. I think you and WR have danced around some legitimate criticisms without understanding what each other is saying, which is not to suggest either one of you gives a rat’s ass…
Cheers,
Mitch, Rat:
In re the rat poison photo, it might be worth pointing out how the process works:
Whart Rat comments I look for a picture or a graphic that will work with his words. I search on “rat.”
Here was my choice: a picture of a rat or a picture of rat poison. I chose the latter for reasons already beaten to death.
However, in the interests of fairness, I did use the headline: “Wharf Rats Out Con Man.” In contrast to the picture, the headline, which I wrote, takes a clear shot at me.
Thus, in judging the rat-poison picture, keep it in the context of the anti-Con Man headline, and I think you’ll see there’s a reasonable balance in the presentation.
This is probably more information than anyone needs to know, but it’s really part of the fun for me.
All best, Michael!