Star Trek: Axanar

[MikeH92467]

The concerns are legitimate. Lots of money is sloshing around through the crowdfunding outlets and everyone who donates to them should know just what their money is going toward. The attacks on Alec Peters and Co. do not rise to anything more than trollery, but anyone who asks for money should be ready to answer the tough questions. FWIW I'm satisfied that Alec is being transparent, but that doesn't mean I feel they are above being questioned about what they are doing with the money.

 

[gazomg]

When CBS decides to make their own series, the banhammer is exactly what will happen. For now, the fanfilms aren't infringing on CBS' turf.

When ?
I see it more as "id"

The internet is full of trolls, making up lies and accusations. You say, in effect that the trolls raised questions and i09 should have given the trolls validity. ABSOLUTELY NOT. Lying trolls raising fake questions should NEVER be the basis of joining harassment.

Totally agree

 

[Red Omega]

Questions had been raised and iO9 should've asked those involved directly about them, thus giving all sides a chance to chime in on the accusations.

That's bullshit. Questions were not raised. A troll made libelous claims. That is not the same thing.

If I say you beat your wife, were "questions raised" about domestic violence? No, because there is no basis for the claims.

And the accuser was anonymous, and thus unwilling to stand by his claims, which were basically made up lies. Sorry, you don't get to say his claims are worth being answered.

 

[DaveGalanter]

Most of them are just blogs. But I still hold hope that one of these so-called pop culture news sites would practice real journalism.

Most professional news outlets do a poor job at practicing real journalism (and investigative journalism is sometimes like hen's teeth) and you want a click-on-us puff blog site to do it? That's not a hope, that's a pipe dream.

Regarding Axanar, I did some early script editing and made dialogue and scene suggestions to Alec as he was writing his first draft of Axanar, so I DO have a bit of a bias here, but I also think that informs my subjective opinion of him. I see him soliciting money for this project not to do anything other than making it the best possible project it can be. He is attempting (and I think succeeding) at making it as professional as possible, and is sincere in both his passion and his forthrightness.

Alec is, I believe, like most people with passion, sometimes irascible and recalcitrant--especially about a project that means so much to him. I think that is why this movie is going to kick some serious butt, to be honest. And for those (like myself) who donated to the cause, I've seen nothing but transparency about the spending of the funds in a detail that frankly is more than I really care to know. I don't expect such a fan film to be this detailed, any more than I expect Regal Cinema to tell me how much of my $12 ticket goes to buying the print and how much goes to air conditioning maintenance.

I've not seen the Axanar script in some time, and I've considered asking Alec for a look to see if I could offer anything more, but you know why I've not? Because it's the only time I've every thought "I'd like to be more involved in this awesome project" rather than "maybe I can help and add something to this." Considering all the amazing talent that came on board since I first saw it, I seriously doubt I'd have much to add, and wanting to be more involved is a bad reason to be in the mix if you think others are rocking it out better than you can. That's the confidence *I* have in this project.

Dave Galanter
Writer (with a degree in journalism to boot)

 

[Maurice]

I think it's fine to ask questions. The "troll" aside the the target number has jumped around a few times, and it does really lead one to question and what point the holding out of the tin cup ends. I put their posted numbers into a spreadsheet and projected how much it would cost to build more sets based on the figures they gave, even assuming they are simpler sets than the bridge, and it's a lot.

As to io9 and its ilk, sadly audiences don't seem to care if a story is properly vetted or not, which is too bad, because what we end up with are poorly or barely researched puff pieces, and then, sharing economy-like, we the audience have to do the legwork to determine if the "story" has any merit.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Most of them are just blogs. But I still hold hope that one of these so-called pop culture news sites would practice real journalism.

Most professional news outlets do a poor job at practicing real journalism (and investigative journalism is sometimes like hen's teeth) and you want a click-on-us puff blog site to do it? That's not a hope, that's a pipe dream.

Maybe so. But I don't accept mediocrity from professional news outlets either and get just as outraged. And it's not unreasonable to expect the best journalism from any site that chooses to call itself a news or anyone who chooses to call themselves a reporter.

Or maybe I'm just becoming a cantankerous git as I approach 40.

I'll say this once again: I'm not saying any wrongdoing took place. But any reporter worth their salt would checked out these concerns about where the money was being spent, figuring out whether there was an validity to them and giving the production team a chance to respond to any claims.

 

[DaveGalanter]

But I don't accept mediocrity from professional news outlets either and get just as outraged.

I used to get outraged. Decided it was a waste of my time and affected the happiness of my life. :-)

And it's not unreasonable to expect the best journalistic from any site that chooses to call itself a news or anyone who chooses to call themselves a reporter.

Many things aren't unreasonable but that doesn't mean they're going to (or likely to) happen.

I'll say this once again: I'm not saying any wrongdoing took place. But any reporter worth their salt would checked out these concerns about where the money was being spent, figuring out whether there was an validity to them and giving the production team a chance to respond to any claims.

We can always ask Brian Williams, but he'll probably say he co-wrote it with Alec.

 

[BigJake]

it does really lead one to question [at] what point the holding out of the tin cup ends . . . we the audience have to do the legwork to determine if the "story" has any merit

If this little outing demonstrates anything, it's surely that on this path lies madness.

It has always seemed to me that it isn't practical for a bunch of fans -- not a few of whom have apparently set themselves the task of being vigilante would-be fraud investigators -- to basically set themselves up as Citizen CFOs of a production they aren't running the better to declare it their public duty to audit the books on behalf of "the fans" to determine when Axanar is and is not permitted to fundraise. It's really astonishingly presumptuous and the kind of behaviour that would be aimed at no other production. Its basis in thus-far-clearly-unwarranted suspicions (many of them, from some of those involved, seemingly rooted in prior personal grudges with no direct bearing on the subject matter) couldn't be plainer, and it should surprise absolutely no-one that the only destination that train ever seems to arrive at -- over and over and over again at this point -- is Crazytown.

The truth is that outlets like io9, "journalistic" or not, are as Red Omega quite correctly points out not in the least obligated to treat it as a "story" when some anonymous berk in a comments section decides to announce that Alec Peters bought a car. Nor even when some gaggle of posters on a message board, industry professionals themselves or not, get it in their heads that Alec Peters is fundraising too much and how dare he. Because in fact, you see, most of us don't feel the need to run Axanar's financials for them and have yet to see any pressing need for anyone but Team Axanar to be doing so. It's not our job and AFAICS neither is it yours.

Now of course you're free to spend your time as you please, but perhaps what "one" should be wondering about is whether the fandom actually need or want a bunch of amateur Internet sleuths appointing themselves to "do the legwork to determine if the ["story" is being kind, it's usually "latest slander," let's be real] has any merit" because for some unfathomable reason the New York Times isn't all over PetersGate and the Axanar beat. As far as I've seen, it's something we don't need and that has done nothing but needlessly waste a bunch of time and energy, not to mention potentially damaging the credibility of several parties engaged in trying to drive the... "legwork." At what point is enough enough with this stuff?

 

[Maurice]

I think you're misconstruing my point somewhat. I am not even addressing the "troll". I am just pointing out that web "repeater" sites rarely do any kind of verification. Someone tells them something and it's parroted. Fire and forget. Get the clicks, and let everyone else decide if you should have published it or not. I'm not concerned with the comments in my observation.

 

[BigJake]

Okay, fair enough then. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[KennyB]

I am an award-winning journalist, one of those awards was for investigative reporting.

 

[Phantom]

Let me preface this by saying that I do not believe currently that there has been any showing of wrongdoing by the producers of Axanar.

That said, I feel the need to challenge some claims:

Questions had been raised and iO9 should've asked those involved directly about them, thus giving all sides a chance to chime in on the accusations.

That's bullshit. Questions were not raised. A troll made libelous claims. That is not the same thing.

Every expose begins with claims. Claims =/= proof. That is why investigation is a must. You can no more claim "Jeremy" is libelling Axanar's producers than he can claim they are defrauding the donors unless the matter is thoroughly looked into.

Unfortunately, the rule of thumb in claims of scandal (as in politics) is "he who attacks first often wins".

If I say you beat your wife, were "questions raised" about domestic violence? No, because there is no basis for the claims.

In point of fact, they were. Depending on the exact situation, different responses would ensue. If you called the police and said the perp has been beating his wife, the police might not be able to do much more than send an officer to make a "welfare check" on the wife and attempt to solicit more evidence (your claim being evidence also, if weak evidence). If your clain was that the wife was being beaten right now, you'd better believe there'd be a Code 3 response (given a crime in the midst of commission).

Of course, if you report such a thing falsely, you can expect to have your own visit from the authorities.

And the accuser was anonymous, and thus unwilling to stand by his claims, which were basically made up lies. Sorry, you don't get to say his claims are worth being answered.

Many many scandals have been exposed using an anonymous initial report. Deep Throat brought down the Nixon administration and no one knew his identity until just a few years ago.

Io9 can't be blamed for not including the issue in it's original article because it wasn't aware of it. Now that the claim has been made, if io9 wants to be seen as journalistically credible (as opposed to being a "tabloid"), then it can and in fact should investigate further.

It is also incumbent upon "Jeremy" at this point to also "put up or shut up". If he has documentary evidence of wrongdoing or witnesses to proffer, now is the time.

If he does not, then that pretty much rubbishes the claim.

ETA: Several people have said effectively that they don't feel that an investigation is needed. My only reply to that was that (at one point) shareholders in Bernie Madoff's funds and Enron said the same thing.

Not that this is anything approaching either in scope, but a million dollars is a lot of money. If there was fraud, it would be felony fraud and someone could go to jail over it, if proven.

The ball is in "Jeremy"s court now.

 

[DaveGalanter]

I am not a lawyer, but (and someone will correct me if I'm wrong) I believe that to prove legal fraud there is a set standard. Even if one proved that there was an untrue statement in the Kickstarter, one would have to prove intent to deceive AS WELL AS material injury.

If Axanar gets made (and even if it is made but not released because Paramount decides not to allow it) then the "contract" of the Kickstarter is met and no material injury can be claimed under the accusation that Axanar set out to commit fraud.

 

[Karzak]

I am an award-winning journalist, one of those awards was for investigative reporting.

I sincerely hope you shared this comment in good humor, KennyB. Otherwise it just comes across as unnecessarily rude and mean-spirited.

 

[Red Omega]

So Phantom, you think because an anonymous troll makes libelous claims that are clearly (to anyone who does even the most basic of reading) false, IO9 should address them? Seriously?

According to you, every troll on the Internet now creates an "obligation" for every journalist to address said troll's bullshit claims.

A journalists obligation is to use his head. If the troll is anonymous and doesn't provide any proof, then the journalist dismisses it. That is all that is needed. There is no "claim", there is only Internet bullshit. A journalist doesn't have to give any credence to unsubstantiated trash talk.

And anyone who has followed Axanar, or even just reviewed the Axanar site, can see that they are pros and actually doing something impressive, and an anonymous troll on Reddit, is just that.

 

[Karzak]

So Phantom, you think because an anonymous troll makes libelous claims that are clearly (to anyone who does even the most basic of reading) false, IO9 should address them? Seriously?

According to you, every troll on the Internet now creates an "obligation" for every journalist to address said troll's bullshit claims.

I do not think that is what Phantom was trying to say. I read his comments merely as agreeing with Ryan Thomas Riddle's about responsible, investigative journalism and citing actual examples of investigative journalism and stories that support is position.

A journalists obligation is to use his head. If the troll is anonymous and doesn't provide any proof, then the journalist dismisses it. That is all that is needed. There is no "claim", there is only Internet bullshit. A journalist doesn't have to give any credence to unsubstantiated trash talk.

Respectfully, I disagree. How would a journalist worth reading know what claims are "unsubstantiated trash talk" without first investigating them?

It is up to the journalist to decide if the claim is worth investigating and if they choose to do so, they then do their due diligence to verify the information they are seeking and reporting about.

I agree that there is a very libelous taste to some of the things being said but that shouldn't immediately mean then that the claims are not worth investigating or proving/disproving.

 

[137th Gebirg]

This is why I despise how the line between "journalist" and "blogger" has become excessively muddy in the past decade. Yes, it's wonderful that everyone has a voice now, should they chose to use it. However, when people who claim to be journalists filter out certain random voices based on a pre-established personal agenda without the proper fact-checking have greatly contributed to the degradation of the internet. It's oftentimes nearly impossible to wade through all the pigshit and find the nugget of truth in there. It's almost not worth it any more.

 

[Phantom]

I am not a lawyer, but (and someone will correct me if I'm wrong) I believe that to prove legal fraud there is a set standard. Even if one proved that there was an untrue statement in the Kickstarter, one would have to prove intent to deceive AS WELL AS material injury.

If Axanar gets made (and even if it is made but not released because Paramount decides not to allow it) then the "contract" of the Kickstarter is met and no material injury can be claimed under the accusation that Axanar set out to commit fraud.

This is certainly true. The bind comes in producing the goods. If all the money is spent on other things, none is left to produce the promised film. If it turns into a never-ending cycle of Kickstarters with nothing to show for it, then that would be evidence in and of itself.

Not that we are anywhere near that point.

 

[KennyB]

This is why I despise how the line between "journalist" and "blogger" has become excessively muddy in the past decade. Yes, it's wonderful that everyone has a voice now, should they chose to use it. However, when people who claim to be journalists filter out certain random voices based on a pre-established personal agenda without the proper fact-checking have greatly contributed to the degradation of the internet. It's oftentimes nearly impossible to wade through all the pigshit and find the nugget of truth in there. It's almost not worth it any more.

Bingo. Well said. Anyone can quote an anonymous source and just say whatever they want. Then it gets reported as real news on a bigger site without any kind of research or fact checking, then the pigshit hits a real news outlet and people's lives are ruined.

 

[KennyB]

I am an award-winning journalist, one of those awards was for investigative reporting.

I sincerely hope you shared this comment in good humor, KennyB. Otherwise it just comes across as unnecessarily rude and mean-spirited.

Sure......ok.