Saturday, July 5, 2014

Believe me

At Game Show Network News, Scott Rahner has posted two e-mails supposedly from a GSN staffer. The e-mails rip GSN parent Sony and programming source Fremantle. These two companies are allegedly asking too much money for recent Wheel of Fortune and more Steve Harvey Family Feud, respectively.

To put it mildly, Scott's claims have been met with skepticism, including some comments from moi. Scott says that the e-mails come from a "two-year intern," an idea I find absurd. Such a low-level staffer would hardly know the details of GSN's most sensitive deals. And no intern interested in continued employment would rip GSN's corporate parent (Sony) and most important source of programming (Fremantle).

The e-mails also look to be written in Scott-ese, even echoing the phrasing of an earlier post by Mr. Rahner. A while back Scott got involved in fakery allegations about a supposed contributor to his blog. I must add that Scott has always been scrupulous in crediting this blog as a source for GSN's upcoming schedules.

Scott hasn't helped his case by repeatedly deleting comments on his blog from people skeptical of his post. He may be right in his claim of inside info about GSN's dealings. But for now I remain very doubtful.

26 comments:

  1. Honestly, I think his blog is kind of stupid. Who needs a blog dedicated to the whole network. Isn't that why we have press releases, eh?

    I mean, who cares what a nobody, (I'm sorry) thinks about things on GSN and stuff. Scott's no Chad Mosher (I don't even much care what he thinks anymore), he's not even you, Casey. I mean, your opinions and commentary and even debates here are interesting. Really, this is the only game show blog I read these days.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Screen shot of e-mail:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzL0RCDeKTA7NGVIMnRfNmVsV1FsOTB4d1BVemxWMGRjWHpB/edit?usp=sharing

    Can we end this ordeal?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scott, you've got to be kidding. This screenshot shows nothing and proves nothing. It's just the verbiage you used on the blog. No e-mail address, routing information, or other identification is provided to indicate in any way that this message came from anybody at GSN.

    I could have created this screenshot.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Scott, why don't you ask them how much for "The Price Is Right"? And if Bob Barker has some kind of embargo on his version airing.

    For the rest of the comments, I'm really not wanting to get into this pissing contest. I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch. My popcorn will be ready tonight

    ReplyDelete
  5. Funny you should mention TPiR. This was a topic of conversation on Steve Beverly's old blog. Steve assured everybody that GSN had an offer from CBS literally on the GSN president's desk to continue the TPiR lease. But the network never signed it.

    Who knows if that was true, either?

    Look, I don't claim to have any sources at GSN beyond the nice person who provides the advance schedules. Those pdfs are sent to a long list of recipients, including many TV schedule sites on the Internet. Anybody can verify if my schedules are accurate or not, just by watching the network.

    Trouble is, there's no way to verify Scott's (or Steve's) "believe me" assertions about GSN's programming deals. Okay, if David Goldhill makes a YouTube video solemnly swearing that Scott's information is accurate, then we've got some evidence. But otherwise, it's just trust-me stuff.

    And sorry to point this out again, but Scott had a serious problem with trustworthiness before, with the issue about the supposed contributor to his blog. Once burned, twice shy about taking things on belief.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Heck I've got David Goldhill's email address, but I'm not certain I'm going to email him with this asinine joke. As far as I'm concerned, this is a joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, would you please send that address to me? I'd love to get an interview with him for my blog.

      Delete
  7. Also, Scott, "Truly yours, [No Name Inserted]"? This smells. Come on, proof? E-Mail address? More proof?

    ReplyDelete
  8. First and foremost, David Goldhill has zero clue who I am.

    Second, speaking of him, here's a screenshot Chad Mosher sent me a while back about an e-mail he claimed to get from GSN:

    http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7825/g4e2.jpg

    No web address, no saying who it was from, just like mine. We both try keeping things private, or else random people everywhere will be sending messages to that web address. You see no name inserted since it is purposely cut off, by me.

    I just don't wish to share the e-mail or who it is from for privacy reasons. That's what is done in the game show industry, even though I can't consider myself in the "Game Show Biz" necessarily.

    If you don't believe me, then I am truly sorry. But I'm not about to tolerate this for much longer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you're going to drag my name with old screen grabs in this, here's the shot of the email that Ms. Brown sent me last year. I've got nothing to hide.
      http://s3.postimg.org/f9tnyyltv/gsn.jpg

      Delete
  9. Why not put this all aside. We can all believe what we want and move on, but let's stay friends, huh? Let's just take this with a grain of salt and calm down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do want to stay friends here! With everyone, even if we're not internet besties. I didn't start any of this. Casey did. I responded properly, but he kept egging on the subject which led to this. He was first to leave a comment at my blog attempting to point out falsehood.

      Hell, Casey did not have to make his own blog post about me.

      I'm sorry if this is causing controversy but that's not the point of this. I don't want controversy. I really don't want rolling eyes or capital letters. I think this is silly.

      Plus, the e-mail from the GSN rep is not even saying "Yes" or "No" to the acquisition of 2012-13 Family Feud. The e-mail is just saying the status of acquisitions.

      Delete
    2. Well, regardless of the scenario, we have our beliefs, some different, and we'll take it and move on. I'm talking to everyone, we didn't need to cough up this big of a storm for this.

      Delete
  10. Maybe some of you who argued with me and others in the past when I have disproved any "legitimacy" Scott/Allison/Nicole tried to bring forth in the past will believe me now. I've been saying this since last year. He just makes things up. Just like he made a fake Twitter account under the name Allison. Just like he tried to an a fake correspondent named Nicole.
    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rk024k

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is immature and a problem. This is 2014.

      Remember, you hid your e-mail source too

      http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7825/g4e2.jpg

      Delete
    2. So people like you wouldn't play the harassment game. But she no longer works at GSN and is now at The Hub.
      http://s3.postimg.org/f9tnyyltv/gsn.jpg

      Delete
    3. But see Chad, I can't do that. You are only revealing the address since the person does not work for GSN any longer.

      This specific sender still works at GSN. If this person leaves in the near future, then I'll post the address publicly since there's no use for it anymore. For now, due to obligations and previous agreement, I can't. I'm genuinely sorry. I can't have my ass sued off just over this.

      Delete
  11. Another thing, I don't claim to have sources from the network except for two cousins who work in the New York City office, but they have nothing to do with this. Here, this was simply a response to one of my posts, a June 30th post, which for some reason there was no controversy there but on this later post there is.

    I thank all of you for your interest in confirming whether this is legitimate or not and I have nothing against anyone for showing interest on the topic.

    Casey, you usually do not attempt to point out falsehoods. I'm surprised you are trying here. But once again, I have absolutely nothing against anyone here. You can point news out and call it crap. You can point crap out and call it news. That's not what I do, but some attempt to. I mean, this is the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There was no controversy on the June 30 post because it was simply speculation on your part about GSN possibly acquiring more episodes of Harvey Feud. Okay, you said the possibility was "by rumor," which means pretty much nothing.

    Anybody can speculate about anything. No problem. But in your latest post you made positive assertions that you received e-mails from somebody at GSN, and then you gave the contents of these supposed e-mails.

    This isn't speculation any more. These are assertions of fact which can be proved or disproved. So far I've seen no evidence the assertions are true, so I'm doubtful.

    I'm not so ready to dismiss you as Chad Mosher is. But I frankly have trouble believing that anybody at GSN, at any level, would send traceable e-mails with such negative comments about Sony and Fremantle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The June 30th post was not me speculating. It was rumored and had been rumored through e-mails from a non-GSN employee and non-GameShowForum poster indiviudual. These same rumors came from the same people who knew about the Minute to Win It revival a few days before Buzzerblog did, then Buzzerblog made it public once it was confirmed more so than not. The 12-13 Feud acquisition is not confirmed. It really won't be until we see a PR.

      GSN execs, from the limited information I know don't love SONY. They don't hate SONY either, of course, being as SONY is the majority owner of the network and furthermore, their jobs. In short, I've heard many times SONY is a "tough", "difficult" and "overruling" owner.

      Delete
    2. How would you know what we knew at BuzzerBlog? I was with them when we broke the Minute to Win It story (I wrote it) and we had information on a possible revival for at least a week. There's this thing called double- and triple-sourcing instead of spewing uncertified blather and we didn't go through with it until we verified. Stop speaking ex-rectum and pick up a journalism basics book.

      Delete
  13. Just to clarify, I used to receive e-mails from the individual at GSN mentioned in Chad Mosher's screenshots. I never used the name, either, as I don't use the name of the people who provide the advance schedules.

    But the advance schedules are "falsifiable," to use a science term. In other words, they can be proved or disproved by simply watching the network and seeing if they're accurate. So far I haven't seen any evidence that Scott's assertions about GSN's programming deals are accurate. So I have my doubts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I'll admit my assertions about this programming deal are not accurate. It is more possible than not that 12-13 Feud will surface on GSN in August. This year of Family Feud is the hardest and most expensive to acquire yet. I haven't seen the finances, but acquiring several seasons of the Karn and/or O'Hurley version are/were probably cheaper than this ONE highly-rated season.

      One thing I was right about, most recently, not to boast, was the appearance of Dawson Feud for a Thanksgiving/Christmas marathon. I knew well ahead of time here:

      http://gameshownetworknews.blogspot.com/2013/09/richard-john-steve.html

      Delete
  14. Can we actually end this? This exact situation is quite silly.

    Believe the authenticity of the e-mail= Thank you

    Don't believe= I don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In any event, it sounds like "WE ARE GONNA PLAY MORE STEVE!" :P

    ReplyDelete
  16. You people are acting like babies, and seem to believe that this matters.

    ReplyDelete