Making Sense of the Non-Census [Update]

There’s something strange in our neighborhood. The Black Rock City Census has morphed beyond a mildly useful planning tool, into a full-scale weapon of social engineering.

The big question is, WHY?

This week I went on the UnSpun show to discuss some of the High Weirdness of this year’s Census.

The Census dates back to the land of Babylon, home of the tower of Babel. The first one we know about was conducted by Nimrod.

The census is older than the Chinese, Egyptian, Greek and Roman civilisations, dating back to the Babylonians in 4000 BC who used a census as an essential guide to how much food they needed to find for each member of the population. Evidence suggests that they noted census records on clay tiles – an example is held by the British Museum….

The Romans conducted censuses every five years, calling upon every man and his family to return to his place of birth to be counted in order to keep track of the population. Historians believe that it was started by the Roman king Servius Tullius in the 6th century BC, when the number of arms-bearing citizens was counted at 80,000. The census played a crucial role in the administration of the peoples of an expanding Roman Empire, and was used to determine taxes. It provided a register of citizens and their property from which their duties and privileges could be listed.


The Daily Telegraph tells us what the point of all this was:

IN Babylon in about 3800BC a team of men headed out to tally up the numbers of men, women, children, livestock, slaves, butter, milk, honey and vegetables in the kingdom. The primary reason was to figure out how much food was needed to feed the population, but the figures also gave an idea of how many men were available for military service and how much they could be taxed without starving them.


Maximization of taxation. Well, the Burning Man Census has always asked “how much money do you make” – and ticket prices have gone up accordingly. The decision to split ticket prices into “pay more if you can afford it” and “Early Bird discount” tiers was made after the first Black Rock City Census, in 2001. The prices have been steadily climbing ever since.


As Burning Man grew, so did the questions in the Census (here’s the 2015 results, 32 pages). At first, it was the usual stuff – where do you live, how much do you make. Later questions seemed strange given Burning Man’s principle of Radical Inclusion: are you religious, are you LGBT – what difference does that make? Surely if you can be accepted without prejudice anywhere, it’s Burning Man. Why bother asking? It’s 2016, we’re well into the 21st century, do people even care about this stuff any more?

Well, people at BMorg certainly seem to. Things have been taken to a new level this year, and it is obvious that the so-called “Census” is not being used to gather information to make the party better for Burners.

This year’s Census takes 30-45 minutes to complete. It is mostly multi-choice answers, but with “conditional” choices – if you choose some options, then hidden questions are revealed to you. For example, if you say you live in Canada, a box pops up asking for your Zip Code. If you say you are eligible to vote in the US, you get a string of questions about which elections you voted in and what your party is.

Straight away, this makes the data in this sample completely different from any paper Census done on-Playa. Why not just ask all Burners the same simple questions? Surely that would give more useful information?

The main Census is being conducted by Dr Dominic Beaulieu-Prévost, Playa name “Hunter”. He is a Professor of Sexology at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM) – about as far from Black Rock City as you can get and still be on the North American continent. One section has additional questions from the “Burning Geeks”. When you get to the end, it asks you if you would like to help the Burning Geeks out further. If you say YES, you are taken to another survey, this one conducted by Oxford University, Maid Marian’s alma mater.

Scientists on the other side of the world are also studying Burners. For what purpose?

The questions themselves give an indication that this is not at all about a Live Entertainment event, a week long arts festival, or even an experimental city. This is about Social Engineering and psychological profiling.

The surveys claim to be anonymous, but you should be aware that they at least have your IP address. If you have ever posted anything at EPlaya or the BJ, created a Burner Profile, or sent an email to the Org (perhaps to sign up for Jack Rabbit Speaks) this information could be used to identify you. They may also be able to get your email address, computer name or phone number from browser cookies. The Oxford survey specifically asks for your email address at the end, and although it says “the information you provide is completely confidential” there is no actual definition of what that means, or who the information gets shared with. It appears to be people from multiple Universities around the world who have signed their confidentiality agreement.

I’m not going to go through all the questions of both Censuses, a 90-minute odyssey. I will just highlight a few questions that we will specifically talk about here, for non-profit educational purposes.

Take the Census here – you can see all the questions without submitting it.

[Update 10/2/16 6:21pm] In the interests of readibility, I have moved the question analysis to the end of the post]


What is Being Collected?

The way these questions are worded and the use of terms either entirely made up, or used by a mere fraction of society, seems designed to skew the Census results. Those who can be bothered going all the way through to the end, writing at length about what The Principles mean to them, become the new demographic face of Burning Man.

If they are not gathering useful information that accurately represents the population, then what, exactly, are They gathering? And for whom?

We should assume that the data includes an IP address. Even if the Quebec and Oxford surveys are not specifically linked with a cookie or token, this information is enough to connect the two submissions. From the IP address they can find out where you are, sometimes with frightening accuracy. Anyone who gets this data – which surely must include BMorg – knows this:

  • your email address
  • camp address
  • the initials of 20 of your friends
  • how close you are to those friends
  • your annual income
  • how many people in your household, and their income
  • your race, and how you feel about it
  • your religion
  • your sexuality – a great deal about it, unless like 97.7% of the US population you are heterosexual
  • if you swing
  • how many countries you have been to
  • what languages you speak
  • how you make moral judgements
  • how you make decisions
  • what effects you emotionally

Although I am not an expert on statistics, I have read a book or two about history. I feel confident saying that there has never been any Census in the last 6000+ years that has gathered such information on its citizens.

How does Black Rock City get better if I am a Two-Spirit Genderqueer who hides my feelings when I’m hostile? Shouldn’t Radical Inclusion mean these things are irrelevant to someone’s participation? This so-called Census makes it seem that these, and having a “transformational experience” that alters your personality, are in fact very important at Burning Man. If they’re not important to you, don’t go.

Who Gets This Information?

I think it would be safe to assume that in addition to the two main Universities, the Burning Man Project gets the data from these two quizzes. In fact, the fine print to the official (Quebec) Census says the Burning Man Project uses this data in planning the event and interacting with authorities from the Federal government and the State of Nevada. The data is individually numbered and coded, shared with “research assistants and collaborators” who have signed a confidentiality agreement, and kept indefinitely.

One section of the survey is by the “Burning Nerds”. This group of academics who study Burning Man was formed in 2010 at Ashram Galactica, the camp of Burning Man Project board member Mercedes Martinez and her husband, former Project director Chris Weitz (whose dad was in the OSS, precursor to the CIA). They’re still operating out of Ashram Galactica, this year’s events were:

  • Sex on the Playa!  (Tuesday, Aug. 30, 1:30 – 2:30 p.m.) – The psychology and data sets of sex, sexual communities, and sexual risk at Burning Man.
  • Transformative Experiences! (Wednesday, August 31st, 1:00. – 2:00 p.m.) – The Psychology and Philosophy of transformative experiences at Burning Man.
  • Diversity on the Playa! (Thursday, September 1st, 2:00 – 3:00 p.m.) – Hear the latest in quantitative data and qualitative analysis from the Census team about diversity in Black Rock City.
  • Data Release Party! (Friday, September 2, 2:30 -3:30 p.m.)  – Be the first to hear about the results of BRC Census’ 2016 Random Sampling, and ask questions.


Despite the workshop commentary, there were no questions about sexual risk in the 2016 Census.

So does anyone in the Burning Nerds get to see the raw data? Or are there only a certain few? Who decides? What about the Org? Can the IT people access the databases? Larry Harvey? Bear Kittay? What about students at the California Institute for Integral Studies doing the 3-unit course “Art and Survival: Radical Creation at Burning Man” – are they part of the Burning Nerds?

Earlier this year the Burning Nerds gave their first report about The Transformation Project:


Note the distortion in the presentation of this data: “I did not have a transformational experience” is not even shown on this chart.

The BJ post accompanying this chart revealed the identity of just some of the players behind this:

Molly Crockett is an Associate Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Oxford studying the psychology and neurobiology of altruism and morality. Find out more at her lab website.

S. Megan Heller (playa name: Countess) is a psychological anthropologist studying adult play and transformation at Burning Man, and particularly the role of play in healthy adult development and mental well being. She is a researcher working at the UCLA Center for Health Services and Society. Find out more at her website.

Kateri McRae (playa name: Variance) is an affective scientist who is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Denver. She studies emotion regulation and other emotion cognition interactions using self-report, psychophysiology and functional neuroimaging. Find out more at her lab website.

Daniel Yudkin is a doctoral candidate in Social Psychology at New York University and a jazz musician. He is fascinated by all topics related to human behavior, including how people compare themselves to others, explore new spaces, and make moral decisions. Find out more at his website.

Annayah Prosser is the Lab Manager for the Crockett Lab at the University of Oxford, and a third year undergraduate student studying Psychology at the University of Bath.

Alek Chakroff is an experimental psychologist studying moral judgment and behavior using methods from social psychology, behavioral economics, and cognitive neuroscience. See more at his research website.

UCLA, Oxford, Bath, NYU, UNC Chapel Hill, Notre Dame and the Universities of Denver and Quebec might seem like quite a few groups around the world with a keen interest in Burners. Our 2012 story on the Burning Nerds adds Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Essex, Florida, Victoria, and Royal Roads to the list of Universities behind the Black Rock Census.

And this is just a fraction of the academic studies related to Burning Man:


There’s more detail about academics on the official web site.

We have been going down this path for a while. In 2013, “Psypost” brought us a story about how the University of Denver studied 16,227 Burners over 4 years:

I think the most striking thing that this study demonstrates is that emotion regulation can change due to sociocultural context far more quickly than previously reported,” Kateri McRae of the University of Denver, the lead author, told PsyPost. “Most previous research focuses on culture as defined by long-standing shared values and norms (and compare groups like those living on mainland China to those living in the U.S.), and the fact that we see similar changes when people attend an event for a week is very cool.”

“To me, that indicates that how we regulate our emotions in accordance with social norms is a very dynamic process. Another way to think about it is that ‘culture’ might be something that is much more local and changeable than we previously thought…

So the paradox of Burning Man is that people are more open, less inhibited when expressing their emotions, but also more thoughtful in terms of reframing, reconsidering or reevaluating their emotions (which is what reappraisal entails).

Read the full paper from the Journal of Frontiers in Psychology.

Hello! Earth to Academics! THESE PEOPLE ARE ON DRUGS. If you do not disclose or even consider that then your study is completely worthless scientifically.

“All these young people took Molly at a rave. Then they reported feeling more positive, with a heightened sense of emotion. Therefore, that was caused by the rave”



And speaking of Molly…meet Dr Molly Crockett, who received a grant from the Templeton Foundation to study Burning Man.

Would love to see what this gal looks like in her Playawear – if she’s even a Burner, that is. This is not just some Oxford undergraduate working on a quirky thesis, she has a whole lab named after her and a team of assistants.

Follow The Money

One of the maxims in shadow history research is “follow the money”. So who’s paying for all this? And how much?

The Templeton Foundation has awarded Dr. Molly Crockett a two-year grant to investigate the topic ‘Transformative Prosocial Experiences’.
The project is associated with The Experience Project (, a $4.8 million, three-year initiative at the University of Notre Dame and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. The project explores the nature and philosophical implications of lived experiences that transform our epistemic perspectives.  Here is a decsription of the proposed research:

Can people become more generous, cooperative and kind through transformative experiences? If so, how can people pursue and achieve these experiences? This research will study in detail a natural setting commonly associated with prosocial transformation: the Burning Man festival. The project will combine qualitative and quantitative approaches to examine the psychological mechanisms of prosocial transformations, how individuals’ expectations for transformation influence prosocial outcomes, and how people decide whether to pursue prosocial transformation. Finally, the new research will investigate what situational features are sufficient for inducing transformative prosocial experiences. Past research on prosociality suggests three key factors that may contribute to prosocial transformation: a moneyless economy; prosocial goals; and a festive atmosphere. The research team will perform a comparative analysis of events that share some, but not all, features of Burning Man, to isolate those that contribute most to transformative prosocial experiences. In doing so, this work will provide practical advice for those who desire prosocial transformation.


The beneficiary of this research is not the participants themselves, but “those who desire prosocial transformation”…in other words, Social Engineers – and the oligarchs who employ them. That’s who wants to spend $4.8 million to figure this stuff out. Dr Crockett’s earlier studies in “experimental” psychology at Cambridge were funded by a scholarship from Bill Gates.

anglo-american-establishmentProfessor Carroll Quigley, who taught politics to Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton at Georgetown University, described how Oxford and Cambridge are used by British Intelligence for recruitment and propaganda in his book The Anglo-American Establishment.

In May this year, it was disclosed in the BJ that the 2015 Census was funded by the Templeton Foundation. The Institute for Study of Globalization and Covert Politics talks about Templeton’s ties to occult base Esalen in their article on Grass Roots Organizations, the New Left and the Liberal CIA. In his 1983 autobiography Timothy Leary said “the liberal CIA is the best mafia you can deal with”.

John Templeton Jr was the CEO of Franklin Templeton Investments, who camp with the CIA at Bohemian Grove’s most exclusive camp Mandalay, which even has its own cable car:

Mandalay    This camp is only accessible with a written permission. It is the most exclusive bunk site in the encampment and sits on a hill with a tiny cable car that carries visitors up to the compound. Many members of this camp have personal assistants with them.
Lot’s of government, Bank of America, Amoco, ChevronTexaco, Bechtel, Wackenhut, Du Pont, Rothschild Investment Trust Capital Partners plc., UBS Warburg LLC, Dillon Read & Co., German Steel Trust, Thyssen Krupp, the J.P. Morgan network, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Export-Import bank, Wells Fargo, Seafirst Bank, Manhattan Institute, the CIA, General Electric, RAND Corporation, Firestone, American Telephone and Telegraph, Atlantic Richfield Company, Johnson & Johnson, Walt Disney Company, Weyerhaeuser, Union Pacific Corp., Gannett Corp., PG&E. Corp., MITRE, McKesson Corp., ConAgra Inc., HCA Healthcare Corp., Franklin Templeton Investments which includes Fiduciary Trust, ICF Kaiser Consulting Group, Kissinger Associates, Carlyle Group, TRW Inc., Space Technology Laboratories (STL), IBM, Ford Motor Company, News Corp, BskyB (Rothschild and Murdoch governed), Daily Telegraph plc., the Economist, Caltech, Stanford University (heavily funded by Bechtel), Order of the Bath, Order of the British Empire, Order of Malta, Ditchley, Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Business Roundtable, Business Council, Committee Economic Development, Council on International Economic Policy, Trilateral Commission, Atlantic Institute for International Affairs, Pilgrims Society, 1001 Club, Le Cercle. French socialist prime minister.


That’s your New World Order right there, folks.

John Templeton, Jr was president of the Templeton Foundation, which was founded by he and his father in 2008. They also endowed Templeton College at Oxford. John Jr passed away in 2015; he had been working for the CIA since 1962, according to his autobiography:



Census? Or Psych Profile?

A Census is an exercise in statistics. Historically, the sample has been the entire population.

These two questionnaires are more what I would describe as “psychological profiling”. The profile created as a result of either of these surveys is extremely detailed; put both together and They may know you better than you know yourself.

There are certain psychological profiles that could be obtained from answering this strange spectrum of questions that could be very useful to certain agencies. What type of agencies? That would be speculation, but I note that if there is any involvement or interest in this data beyond the University of Quebec and Oxford,  that is being kept secret.

Timothy Leary was hailed as a hero at Burning Man last year, with Queen of Burning Man Susan Sarandon promoting Ugg boots and taking sacrament and leading an occult procession to a temple burn.

Timothy Leary at the Human Be-In, Golden Gate Park SF 1967. Image: pophistorydig

Timothy Leary at the Human Be-In, Golden Gate Park SF 1967. Image: pophistorydig

Before he was a kaftan-wearing, Playboy-posing Presidential candidate, Leary was a student at the prestigious West Point military academy and a Sergeant in the Army – he won four medals in World War 2. After he finished his degree via correspondence school, he got a PhD in clinical psychology from UC Berkeley. While working as a research psychologist at the Kaiser Foundation in Oakland, he wrote “The Leary”, which got him a promotion to Harvard and gained him the attention of Aldous Huxley. Huxley and Dr Humphry Osmond recruited Leary to be one of the main promoters for the CIA’s MKULTRA project, though they feared this ex-military guy in a suit was too straight for the job.

There were 44 Universities and colleges involved in MKULTRA experiments, most of them unwittingly. So far there are at least 33 that we know of doing research on Burning Man – and at least a dozen of those Universities appear on both lists.

What was “The Leary”?

It was a psychological profiling test, used in the entrance exams for the CIA.

So Timothy Leary, who created a psychological profiling test for the CIA, is hailed as a hero at Burning Man – the same year that a research foundation created by a long-time CIA agent gives a multi-million dollar grant to do psychological profiling tests on Burners? Things that make you go hmmmm….

Better add one more to the Coincidence Meter!


Can you pass the Acid Test?


ticket 1998



danger ranger tweet self service cult wash your own brain

[Update 10/12/16 7:50am]

A 1963 statement by the CIA’s Inspector General shows what the real point of Personality Testing was and how it fit into “operations”:

The [Clandestine Services] case officer is first and foremost, perhaps, a practitioner of the art of assessing and exploiting human personality and motivations for ulterior purposes. The ingredients of advanced skill in this art are highly individualistic in nature, including such qualities as perceptiveness and imagination. [The PAS] seeks to enhance the case officer’s skill by bringing the methods and disciplines of psychology to bear…. The prime objectives are control, exploitation, or neutralization. These objectives are innately anti-ethical rather than therapeutic in their intent.



The Personality Assessment System (PAS) was developed by CIA psychiatrist John Gittinger.


Queerstion Time

The whole thing begins with what may be a Freudian slip:


Burning Many 2016? Is this what is in their minds – many Burning Mans around the world? Or are they thinking about Burning the many deplorables who don’t pass Radical Inclusion 2.0, like frat bros and EDM fans?

Then we get to the introduction, disclaimers, and fine print.

screenshot-2016-09-29-17-27-11 It starts off by asking you if you have already done a Census online this year. This opens the door to double counting, if participants did a Census on the Playa. Towards the end, they provide a list of other ways they collect data from Burners:


It seems that they were out promoting the Census very hard this year, trying to get everyone except DPW and the Early Entry passes – that is, the actual Burners who create Black Rock City. Burning Man employees get paid to answer these questions, which seems like a conflict of interest.

Question 1 suggests that perhaps you can fill this out as many times as you want, thus skewing the results to your own particular demographic.screenshot-2016-09-29-17-28-07

Straight away, we are into some problems. “What is your current gender?” is a separate question from “What sex was assigned to you at birth”. They are separating “sex” and “gender” as concepts, and suggesting that gender is something you can change on a whim, like a hat. Who is this that is “assigning sex at birth” to people? Professional sexologists? It sounds very transhumanist, very Brave New World.

Then – “do you consider yourself to be any of the following – check all that apply”. First of all, I don’t even know what half these things mean. What is “Two-Spirit”? The “B” in LGBT wasn’t enough?

What possible use does this information have to the people rulers of Black Rock City?

The next part of the above is “check all the years you attended the Burning Man event”. I have been to 12 Burns, 11 at Black Rock City. Do Regionals no longer count as Burns now? Or are attendees at Regionals also going to be invited to fill out these surveys? What does Baker Beach have to do with the Black Rock City census?

I note that the choices specifically exclude the earlier Wicker Man events on Ocean Beach, the Baker Beach burns described by Brian Doherty (and now denied by Mary Grauberger), and the Sausalito “Bealzabub” burns since 1979.


Later, they get to even more questions about sexuality. It’s not enough to know if you’re Two-Spirit or Genderqueer, they need to really get to the bottom of this.


Heterosexual or straight? WTF is the difference? Who are pansexuals screwing, that isn’t covered in Bisexual? Animals? Disgusting, but there’s nothing else I can think of that this could mean.

If you say you have a partner, then they immediately want to know if you swing. “Yes, No, It’s Complicated” wasn’t enough to cover it; they wanted to add “Somewhat” as well. So 3 of the 4 possible responses are positive indicators – this is biased, not neutral.

Next, spirituality:


Confusing again. What’s the difference between “Agnostic” and “I don’t know”? Or between “religious” and “deist?”

What relevance does religion have under Radical Inclusion? And who came up with the idea that Flying Spaghetti Monster is a more important religion than Muslim or Hindu – which between them have 2.6 billion followers? This seems like a subtle hint to people of those faiths that they are less than welcome.



They ask survey participants (who don’t have to have been to Burning Man) how Burners get their Burning Man information.


I would love to know the totals for this question. If it’s favorable to us, it’s highly unlikely it will be shared.

You will note that “web sites” beyond the official ones are not an option, even though there is more information about Burning Man here at than anybody’s Twitter account. We just get lumped together as “Social media, Facebook, Twitter NOT managed by Burning Man”.

This is ironic, given that after Burners.Me (235,055 Likes), the next largest Burner Facebook groups all seem to have been co-opted by BMorg. BurnTheMan (82,126 ) and The Official Unofficial Burning Man Group (10,442) were infiltrated at the admin level. Groups like Pink Hearted (1,618) and Burn After Reading Magazine (3,160) have been fully assimilated by the org, and even the formerly independent Dr Yes at Burn.Life (5,614) was seduced by BMorg to get naked at the Flysalen VIP this year. Meanwhile the second largest independent Burner page Dancetronauts (98,687) have lost about 20% of their Likes and slipped back to third after a co-ordinated hate campaign. They have now been eclipsed for the #2 spot by Robot Heart (107,749). Robot Heart’s Loic La Meur was all over the Burning Man Global Leadership Conference this year, and interviewed Larry Harvey on stage in Paris in 2013. These are just camp pages, though, not sources for Burning Man news.

Then we get some bizarre questions about the Ten Principles. Pick the three you use most frequently in your every day life, and the three you find hardest – and then describe why they’re so important. You can see that only really, really dedicated Burners are going to bother to complete the survey past this point. It seemed like online multi-choice, not an exam with essays. screenshot-2016-09-29-18-10-46 screenshot-2016-09-29-18-14-05

I thought these were the “Ten Principles of Burning Man”, not the “Ten Principles to Live Your Everyday Life By”. Burning Man’s web site admits that the Principles were set up in such a way that they often actively contradict each other.

Most Burners I know – and trust me, I know a lot – couldn’t even name all ten principles, let alone be trying to live their life by them. I mean what are we, monks? We have to live in the commercial world without doing anything to make money, and give as many gifts as we can? WHY? Because we burn a wooden sculpture once a year?

What’s happened to “Burning Man is the new American holiday?” If we have to return to the default world and live by the Principles of the cult, that sounds like real life, not a holiday.

wired 1996

Then we get a rather strange scenario. How would you give $100 away, if you were BMorg? This reminds me of Stewart Brand’s “Demise Party” that created the Homebrew Comptuer Club at SLAC – see Rolling Stone’s The Last Twelve Hours of the Whole Earth Catalog. I note that “fly staff around the world to attend decompressions, regionals, TED talks and other festivals” is not one of the options, even though more of each Burners’ $100 $400 goes to that than the other categories.

screenshot-2016-09-29-18-18-22 The next set of leading questions relate to minors at Burning Man. This is in Part 2, from the Mistress of Communications


It would be quite easy to ask “are you concerned about pedophiles at Burning Man?” – a question that many would say “yes” to, whether they had children or not. Instead, the questions seem carefully structured to bring about a desired result – like Cass Sunstein’s choice architecture. Before you are even asked if it’s safe for children, you have to acknowledge that there are families there and that people bring their kids. You are not asked for a reasoned opinion about this, merely your feeling.

If you say it is unsafe, another question appears. The dangers are “Physical Dangers” and “Psychological Dangers” – not sexual dangers, and not dangers with the police. To me this seems dangerously accommodating of the philosophy expressed by Allen Ginsberg, Temporary Autonomous Zone creator Hakim Bey, and their fellow NAMBLA members that teenage children are asking for sex and it does them good to learn about it from adults. “There’s no physical harm! There’s no psychological harm, it’s love!” Whatever dude, it’s against the law and against all standards of human decency. Burners need to distance themselves and their event from this practice, emphatically.

The issue is framed here purely about the children, and not the adults. This despite the fact that there are at least 20 Burners for every child attending. Most Burners with children do not bring them; most Burners do not have children.

The main issues for 95% of Burners are being held hostage trying to leave for hours and fed false information about an Amber Alert that was actually just a naughty 17 year old, and cops running underage stings on camps handing out free booze. If Burning Man, an event where there is a vast amount of alcohol that is all free, was a 21+ event all these problems would instantly disappear. BMorg refuses to consider that, it is just so important to them for teens to attend their event – even though it takes place during the first week of high school, so for most teens to attend they have to be truant.

Nobody should have to show ID at Burning Man. That is even more of a Default World thing than money. The majority of Burners suffer for children to be at Burning Man, and so does our international reputation. It’s a matter of when, not if, something really bad happens – a man was caught trying to kidnap a 10 year old boy this year.

If ever there was any event in the world that should be adults-only, it’s Burning Man. And if anything proves that, it’s this survey. Young children do not need to be exposed to Two Spirit Gender Queer Pansexuals. Who cares if Larry had two kids there at his first one, that’s irrelevant in 2016. Today Burning Man is internationally renowned for free drugs, free drinks, free sex, and an orgy dome. That’s not my opinion: it’s on The Simpsons. Why would any parent expose children to this? Not to mention lung-damaging dust that possibly may be contaminated from decades of life as a Navy bombing range.

At one end of the spectrum is the nuclear family, Mom and Dad and the kids all living in one dwelling, the Judeo-Christian values that built the USA and most of the world. This survey does not seem to have been created with them in mind. At the other end of this spectrum are the Satanists, Aleister Crowley and do what thou wilt, his disciple Kinsey‘s sexual experiments on children being funded by the Rockefeller Foundation to destroy the building blocks of society. These are the Social Engineers, the Cultural Marixsts.

The next question about placement narrows down your profile. They ask you what street you were on, then once you answer another question pops up for the radial address. By this point they’ve also asked you if your camp was connected to the power grid or its own generator and if there was any renewable energy.


Then they ask you if you were a “placed camp” or not. If you weren’t placed by BMorg, why did you camp where you did?


Whatever the truth, I recommend not checking yes to “access to all night parties”…just in case this psychological profile is ever connected to your Burner profile. Never mind that Burning Man itself is an all night party, and much less happens there during the day, since it is summertime in the desert…

Then the Burning Nerds come back, for Part 3. They really want to know about your sex life too:


Once again, these terms are undefined. What is the difference between a “swinger” and “polyamorous”? If you are happily in love in a monogamous relationship, you can’t indicate being a “Love Addict” without signalling that you could be a Sex Addict. Even the people I know who probably are sex addicts don’t go around describing themselves as such. Addiction is a psychological disorder. Love is not.

And, of course, what does any of this have to do with Burning Man? Is it a swingers’ party?

This next question is not surprising – though, again, undefined:


But then it starts to get even more bizarre:


Are the suggestogens working? Does attending Burning Man make you more gullible?

Are you ready for the hive mind?


Seriously? What is this data going to be used for? “On average” – what does that even mean? Their Venn diagrams do not describe any of my relationships with other human beings. And why is it even necessary to state “human beings”? Are there other types of beings doing this Census?


Hypothetical situations? In a Census?


The Joker? Is this Burning Man, or Bat Man? “What character are you playing at Burning Man” – seriously? You will note that “being myself” is not an option. So much for one of the Ten Principles being “Radical Self-Expression”.

It’s not enough to say what your preferred character is. You then have to describe in detail the activities that you indulge in while pretending to be someone else:


And then they ask:

Do you often feel drawn to playing one of these characters in your life (regardless of the struggle, cost, challenges, or unpleasantness involved in being that person)? Check the best answer.

Unpleasantness? Why would anyone at an entertainment festival choose to play an unpleasant character? If I tell a story in San Francisco, am I playing the character of a story-teller because my self-expression is somehow restricted?

Why didn’t your friends and family go to Burning Man?


“Too many white people”? In what world is that not racism? “Too many men” is acceptable, but not “too many women”? Talk about sexist man-hating bigotry. And why isn’t there “not enough electronic music” as an option?

If you choose an option, it asks you how many of your friends and family think that way:     screenshot-2016-09-29-18-32-31 Then, when you’re done, the Burning Nerds want to hear from you – even if you’ve never been to Burning Man! What sort of Census includes people who are not there? These curious Burning Nerds are at Oxford University. screenshot-2016-09-29-18-33-24


The screen fade is a little hypnotic. These academic “scientists” get away with things we never could in the corporate world. For example their statement “there are no risks associated with this study”. At the very least, there is a risk that the data could get hacked or leaked. There is also the risk that security settings on your computer reveal more information to the server than just the questions you’re answering.

They want some identifying information, although instead they lie to you that what you are providing is “completely” anonymous. In fact it is partially anonymous.


It doesn’t take long for the Burning Nerds to start asking some very strange and highly personal questions:screenshot-2016-09-29-18-39-19

It goes on and on like this.

Both Oxford and Quebec seem to have an obsession with lowly-paid workers. It seems weird when just a ticket and vehicle pass to Burning Man is $500, let alone providing for yourself and gifts to others for 8 days. How do people earning less than $50k a year afford to go? Why study these people, when Burning Man 2.0 is being marketed with Billionaire’s Row? What difference does it make to Burning Man if someone earns $15,000 per year or $17,000?



Oxford also asks the exact same questions about voting. Aside from this being a waste of everyone’s time, how is US voting relevant in any way to Canada and England?

They also have the same weird Venn diagram thing. It is interesting that the Burning Nerds don’t seem to be able to collaborate with each other.


Now it gets really complicated. You need a degree from Oxford just to complete the frikking Census.


Enter the initials of your friends, and how close you are to them? Hey, why don’t I just give you my Facebook login while we’re at it! Sorry Burners, but Oxford University is not telling you the truth. The initials of your closest friends is definitely not entirely anonymous information. Especially at Burning Man, where Burners have to create profiles. The more you write in the essay sections of these tests, the easier you become to identify.

unpleasent truths

It’s not just how close you are to them; it’s how much time you are prepared to spend doing favors for them.


WTF does this have to do with Burning Man?

Are you good or bad? Could you do evil, if the ends justified the means? Oxford University wants to know.screenshot-2016-09-29-19-08-48

Oxford asks a lot about children too. There are questions about giving children money, candy, and teddy bears. Then there’s this:


I’m sure the pedophiles think it’s very important for children to have independence, curiosity, self-reliance, and a desire to disobey and disrespect their elders. It’s hard to see how this relates to the stated mission of the Burning Man Project, or an Oxford University study on transformational festivals.

[Update 10/3/16 10:30pm] The Washington Post says these are the exact questions used to identify Trump voters by the London School of Economics and the University of Massachusetts (Amherst). I guess it’s not enough to know if Burners are Republican, and who they voted for in the previous 4 U.S. elections…Oxford and BMorg need to know if they’re deplorables too.

Oxford at least acknowledges that some of the people taking their survey may have been on drugs. But what happens in the comedown?


Are you the type of person who hides their feelings? Maybe while playing Batman?

screenshot-2016-09-29-19-09-43 screenshot-2016-09-29-19-09-50


If you manage to wade your way through all of that, you may be eligible for a generous prize!


We just want your email for the raffle prize!”. We have an expression for such statements in Australia: “pig’s arse”. Which translates as a sarcastic “sure you do”.

The raffle itself is also bizarre; the benefit for giving your email address and time is ten raffle tickets to win a $50 Amazon gift card. You can keep them for yourself or gift them.


A nice way to measure your “greed coefficient”.

. . .Are Condemned to Repeat It

by Whatsblem the Pro

A nice civilized chat -- IMAGE: Mount & Blade

A nice civilized chat — IMAGE: Mount & Blade

Ah, the sugary cloy of kool-aid.

We tend to get a lot of comments when we criticize the corporation that runs Burning Man, and our recent article calling for the Board of Directors to make good on their promise to transition the corporation to a non-profit and step down to make way for new leadership has certainly been no exception.

One commenter who calls himself “Buck Down” was quite verbose about it; I’ve chosen to answer some of his questions and comments here, in a new article, as I think the discussion is important enough to draw the attention of our readers. This isn’t the conversation as it occurred; I’m quoting Buck and giving expanded answers in greater detail.

Buck Down wrote:
I think it’s pretty funny that anyone who dares contribute anything to this conversation other than overblown indignation is instantly an “Org shill.”

The bottom line is that Burning Man has every right to allow coverage of its event as well as disallow it in some cases (see: Girls Gone Wild) – and the media has every right to ask for access. I’d like to think we’re all smart enough here to understand the nuanced difference between allowing coverage of the event vs. profiteering. Should the event have to micromanage the media even farther than they already do? What’s an acceptable overall profit margin for a news entity to be allowed to report on the event?

Whatsblem the Pro:
You think it’s funny that Org people come to and slam us and try to discredit us in the comments? It happens all the time. Given the gigantic straw man arguments you’ve just constructed — the “overblown indignation” is exactly what we get from people leaping to the defense of the Org, not the opposite, and this isn’t about the Org allowing media coverage — I have to wonder if it’s happening again. The Org has a vested interest in countering our criticisms; on top of that, we have thousands of starry-eyed kool-aid drinkers to contend with who have drunk deeply of the propaganda the Org itself creates and spreads.

If you had actually read the article (and assuming you didn’t come here to be disingenuous about it), you wouldn’t have to be told that it has nothing to do with the Org allowing coverage or not allowing it. . . the issue is that they make large amounts of money by allowing it, yet deny burners any commercial use of their own photographs of their own art, just because it’s on the playa. This clearly puts the lie to both the decommodification principle they push on us, and to their protestations to the effect that they only want to protect us from entities like Girls Gone Wild.

You asked the question “what’s an acceptable overall profit margin for a news entity to be allowed to report on the event?” The answer is that any overall profit margin is acceptable, provided that the transaction is transparent, and that burners themselves aren’t being excluded from making similar profits.

Buck Down:
This is in fact a public event on public land, and a culturally significant, globally newsworthy event, to boot. What I think some of you may not realize is that the numerous agencies the event has to pay to allow the event to continue (ie: the BLM, as well as local and state agencies) have constantly (and in some ways arbitrarily) jacked up the price of holding the event in the Black Rock desert, while simultaneously regulating the amount of tickets that can be sold. The cost curve of these increased fees, as well as the amount of money it takes to cover the staggering cost of the infrastructure needed to stage, throw, and then completely erase this event all but insures forever that this event will barely limp into the black from year to year. rest assured – the only people stacking paper off of this event are the BLM and local law enforcement agencies.

Whatsblem the Pro:
You have definitely made some very bold assertions. If you know so much about how much they take in and how much everything costs, then perhaps you’d like to reveal all that to the rest of us, and explain why there is such a lack of transparency in Burning Man’s financials.  You seem so certain that they aren’t hiding anything, yet you claim to be nothing more than a concerned burner speaking truth to media.

Only a fool would believe that the Afterburn Reports are any kind of comprehensive, transparent accounting, and you simply asserting that we’re wrong because we don’t know to the penny how much it costs to produce the event is just obfuscatory hand-waving that seems intended to cloud the issue. We do know that ticketing revenue alone has increased by more than 600% since the year they managed to scrape up enough extra cash from ticket sales to buy 200 acres of land and build a working ranch on it. We also know that the Board has revenue streams that are far less transparent to us, like charging giant media conglomerates — excuse me, “boutique cable channels” — large undisclosed sums as site fees. They have many such hidden revenue streams; for instance: did you know that when an approved vendor rents an RV trailer to the Org so that they can house DPW personnel in it, the vendor is required to pay part of the fee back to the Org?

If the Board wants to complain that we are misjudging them when we say they pocket an unreasonable amount of money from the event for their personal gain, then all they have to do is stop pretending that the Afterburn Reports are any kind of comprehensive accounting, and start providing full transparency. The only reason not to do so is that they have money to hide.

Buck Down:
I think a lot of the noise here about the LLC “taking credit” for anyone’s work is a pretty subjective opinion that does not square with the media narrative they push. There are A LOT of artists that have seen the value of their work escalate as a result of having made big splashes at Burning Man – and many who have parlayed that fame into dollars by taking that self same work to massive commercial events such as Coachella and Insomniac throw.

Whatsblem the Pro:
As a writer, I have to say: that sounds a whole lot like offers that many artists – writers among them – get all the time: “the gig doesn’t pay, but think of the exposure you’ll get!” It’s a bullshit offer that no seasoned artist even contemplates accepting unless it’s for a friend or something. . . and you want to point to artists making money at other events as compensation for that, in the same screed in which you call for other events to start following the Burning Man model, really? What happens when every event out there is telling artists to expend their own money and labor unpaid, so the event organizers can rake in ticket money charging people to see their art? The whole thing is simply not germane to the point that the corporation that runs Burning Man is profiting mightily in both cash and reputation from the work of unpaid artists. You think the exposure is pay enough? What about the burner artists who don’t need the exposure?

As for “taking credit,” all you have to do is go to and read what the Org themselves write about the event and their roles in it to see what I’m talking about. The language they use is very consistent in portraying the art at the event, and the culture in general, as something THEY created and continue to create and maintain. They don’t do that; burners do that, usually on their own dime and with their own labor. . . not the Org, and certainly not the Board. Tossing a tiny pittance (~3% of ticket revenue) to largely their buddies and sycophants in the form of arts grants does not give them cause to assert ownership or any creative role in providing that art, and sure the hell doesn’t give them cause to assert same about arts projects that get no funding from them, which is most of them. Grading some roads, arranging for porta-potties, and dealing with the various government agencies involved is nothing compared with the blood, sweat, and tears that go into the vast number of art pieces we get to enjoy on the playa that they have nothing to do with.

Buck Down:
While I certainly understand some people’s wish to have their very own private little club that’s their little secret – i think it’s pretty obvious that Burning Man stopped being that by the mid to late 90′s. I cannot imagine any other 60,000 person event in the world being expected by its participants to shroud itself in some sort of self imposed media blackout to all but a few blogs (or whatever the expectation is here).

Whatsblem the Pro:
Please stop with the straw man arguments. Yes, Burning Man began as what Hakim Bey called a “Temporary Autonomous Zone,” but nobody is calling for a return to that; as you’ve noted, the event is too large for that to be at all practical.

We’re also not calling for any kind of media blackout; where did you get that idea? What we’re calling for is simple: we want the Board to make good on their promises to step down, and to transition the LLC to a non-profit organization with new leadership that adequately represents contributing burners. As a partial rationale for that demand, we have cited the hypocrisy inherent in the Org brainwashing people with the principle of oh-so-sacred Decommodification while simultaneously failing to adhere to that principle themselves. Again: allowing the media in isn’t the issue there; forbidding burner artists to make money from their own work – including photographs of their own work – while raking in cash from giant media outlets in exchange for the right to do just that – is the issue, or one of the issues.

Buck Down:
If you don’t like how big Burning Man has become, and all that goes with it – PLEASE STOP GOING AND START YOUR OWN EVENT. There’s lots of folks that would love to recapture that starry eyed idealism from the days of yore – just be ready to loose an ocean of money in the process – and know everyone is still going to probably hate you in the end for “selling out.”

Whatsblem the Pro:
You can blither and bluster all day about starting our own event if we don’t like the way this one is run, but I have little patience for such talk, for several reasons. The whole idea smacks loudly of those bumper stickers you used to see on vehicles belonging to ignorant jingoist pro-war rednecks in the ’60s and ’70s, the ones that read AMERICA: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. It’s wrong thinking, at its very foundation, and diametrically opposed to the ideas of civic pride, personal responsibility, and “do-ocracy” that are part and parcel of burner culture.

You clearly have no idea how strenuously the Org discourages such attempts (or do you?); maybe you should talk to Corey Rosen about his trials and travails with getting his event, the DIgital Renaissance Faire, off the ground. In fact, I’d like to invite Mr. Rosen to give us an interview specifically about the ways in which the Org has actively countered his efforts in that direction.

Fuck “start your own event.” This one is perfectly good, aside from the corporate predators running it. All it needs is some representation for all the people who actually make it what it is, and some financial transparency. If you don’t like people trying to make Burning Man better, maybe you’re the one who should go find (or start) another event.

Buck Down:
Could you please site me this epidemic of artists not able to use of photographs – because a simple Google search produces millions of pictures, and every artist I know from burning man has a Facebook page jammed full of photos of their shit, and I know that virtually NONE of them had to be run through the org for approval. . .

Whatsblem the Pro:
The Org’s rules state clearly that they have an ownership stake in all those millions of pictures you mention. We haven’t been talking about people simply posting pictures taken at Burning Man, though, as you imply; we’re talking about artists being harassed and intimidated by the Org for using the pictures they’ve taken – of their own art, even – in any sort of commercial fashion whatsoever, including the use of pictures taken at Burning Man on Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and other crowdfunding sites.

There’s a link in the article to a direct account of the Org interfering with someone using a picture of their own art car for a fundraiser campaign if you’d care to look. . . and I personally have experienced intimidation attempts from the Org’s legal people for daring to use the phrase “Burning Man” for a purpose that serves burners and makes no money. . . so instead of getting mired in your disingenuous comments about photos taken at Burning Man, maybe we should talk more about the transition to a non-profit, the police presence on the playa, the lack of rape kits, the tiny slice of the pie that actually funds art, financial transparency/secretive profit-taking, and the Org’s habit of co-opting the unpaid work of others for their own profit and glory.

Buck Down:
What is absolutely true is that the sort of financial purity that people on this thread demand would be the end of the event as you know it. I will concede that the organizers of the event probably brought this upon themselves by espousing all this new age anti-corporate hoo ha, but at the end of the day, the demand to keep the event going and keep pace with the amount of people who want tickets, while still finding ways to cover the costs of this expanded demand, while getting pinched by the government is what it is. Any other event and the world can just sell vendor space or get corporate partners. Burning man is not perfect, but if you compare it to every single other counter culture event – you are getting about as pure as it can be done at this scale.

Like I said, I think people need to start other, much smaller events so that they can return to this sort of purity a certain segment of our community so lustily desires.

Whatsblem the Pro:
“Financial purity,” my ass. All we’re asking for is financial transparency; that and a transition to non-profit status with an accompanying change in leadership is no more than what the Board themselves promised us. Since then, they’ve back-pedaled on stepping down. Since there are many ways for the Directors of a non-profit corporation to line their own pockets while complying with the rules regarding non-profit status, it doesn’t seem unreasonable at all to ask for transparency and representation.

Again, if you really know so much about the costs of the event and the revenue taken in, then you must be pretty high up in the Org yourself, and are probably on the Board. . . how else would you know so much about it? Since you very plainly discounted the idea that Org people come to to slam us and try to discredit us in the comments, this makes you either a liar who does actually have that inside information, or a person who is making completely unfounded and unjustified claims regarding your knowledge of the event’s financials. Which is it?

In so very many ways that we have documented here at over the last year, the Board has proven their incompetence, their greed, and their lack of concern for the problems that rank-and-file burners face. Your counter-arguments are weak, and derived from talking points put forth by the Org at Your dog won’t hunt, sir. . . and given that the transition to a non-profit is our best (and perhaps only) shot at a regime change, it is URGENT that burners start talking realistically about how to effectively demand that the Board stick to the original plan and STEP DOWN, rather than blowing smoke up our collective nethers about how much we need their supposed expertise.

[ welcomes relevant comments to this article.]

Those Who Cannot Remember the Past. . .

by Whatsblem the Pro


Controversy over photography, film-making, advertising, and commerce at Burning Man is both constant in the burner community, and nothing new. A whole playbook of common arguments from both sides of all that controversy has accumulated over the years; in the case of statements made by Black Rock City, LLC – the corporation that runs Burning Man – they form a revealing pattern.

In 2005, a couple of burners who go by ‘Chai Guy’ and ‘DaBomb’ attempted to hold Black Rock City, LLC’s feet to the fire over a deal the LLC made with the Discovery Channel and the New York Times, in which they agreed to allow the filming of an episode of “Only in America” on the playa. Chai Guy and DaBomb launched a letter-writing campaign and a petition; the subsequent back-and-forth with Black Rock City, LLC raised some important questions and highlighted some important points:

  • A site fee was paid by a joint venture of the Discovery Channel and the New York Times. How much was it, and what was the money used for?
  • Why is it OK for Black Rock City, LLC to commercialize pictures and video of the event, when this goes against both the rules dictated to participants by the LLC, and the stated philosophy behind the event as expounded upon by Larry Harvey in numerous speeches and texts?
  • Why is there no transparency in such business deals, which are made on behalf of the entire community? What does the LLC have to hide, if not corruption and profit-taking on the part of the LLC’s Board of Directors?
  • If profit is being made from images of participants and the art they build with their own money and labor, why isn’t it being shared with those participants? For that matter, why isn’t the profit from ticket sales being shared with the artists who contribute their time, labor, and genius to the event?

Black Rock City, LLC’s initial response to the flap raised by Chai Guy and DaBomb was to simply ignore them. As more and more people wrote letters and signed the petition, this was followed by a “we can’t understand what you’re so upset about” approach:

“It isn’t clear what about this proposal exactly pushed new buttons, since projects like it have been approved for years,” wrote the LLC’s representative in a public statement. That statement also contained an explicit reference to the joint venture between the Discovery Channel and the New York Times, describing this titanic business entity with over sixteen million subscribers as a “boutique cable channel.”

As the groundswell rose further and it became clear that answers were going to have to be provided, the LLC answered the questions it suited them to answer, and simply pretended that all those less convenient questions about money and blatant hypocrisy hadn’t been asked.

As for the money, representatives of the LLC have claimed or insinuated many times that they don’t make a profit from Burning Man; they do it like clockwork in places like the yearly Afterburn Reports at . . and this reporter has had that claim made directly to his face by a member of the LLC’s Board of Directors (which they choose to refer to as a “Town Council”). Every once in a while, though, they slip, and we get a glimpse behind that particular curtain, as in this quote from the 2005 Afterburn Report:

“. . .in the spring of 2001, we purchased a 200-acre tract, now called Black Rock Station, utilizing income we received from ticket sales that year.”

So, way back in 2001, they were able to both produce the event, and purchase 200 acres of land and turn it into a working ranch with just a portion of the profits from ticket sales for that year. The 2001 population was an estimated 26,000 people, with a flat-rate ticket price of $200 each, for a gross of approximately 5.2 million dollars just from ticket sales. That year, and every year since then, the LLC – while handsomely plumping up their revenue – has published wan protestations of how little money they actually take in, yet these days, ticket sales alone are estimated at more than six times what they were in 2001, when they had at least enough extra cash on hand to purchase 200 acres of land and develop it into a working ranch. The networking opportunities and concomitant chances for on-the-sly revenue afforded the Board of Directors have, in that time, been increasingly good pickings as well. Oh, but they’re not making any money, everyone knows that. . . the “Town Council” said so themselves!

With the profits from ticket sales being augmented by so many other revenue streams – like cutting quiet deals with the likes of the Discovery Channel and the New York Times, or wangling a large financial interest in Spark: A Burning Man Story, or the $150,000 Vogue paid the LLC for an on-playa photoshoot just recently – it’s insulting to the intelligence to be told that the LLC is struggling for cash. Yes, we know about BLM fees, law enforcement, taxes, the pittance spent on arts grants, and the rest. If all that added up to the LLC’s Board of Directors being altruistic do-gooders who aren’t lining their pockets like any other gang of corporate predators, then they wouldn’t have been able to produce the event at all back in 2001, much less buy 200 acres of land and build a ranch on it.

As for photography and the rules handed down from on high to burners about the use of their own pictures and videos, let’s face reality: they may say they’re protecting our privacy and warding off opportunists like the Girls Gone Wild crew, but the reality of the situation is that what they’re protecting first and foremost is their ‘right’ to cynically exploit us, our labor, our artwork, and our culture, without having to compete with us for the markets our work creates. In the eyes of the Board of Directors – excuse me, the “Town Council” – we are sheep to be managed and sheared for their profit. We are unpaid cotton-pickers on their plantation, and the cotton business is booming while they tell us of their poverty.

Six years ago, when Chai Guy and DaBomb embarked on their mission to assert the rights of the community and steer Burning Man back on course, it was easier to make the assumption that the Board of Directors were not just on our side, but were us. Old-timers might say that only a fool would have made that assumption even then; in the intervening years we’ve seen ample reason to believe that we have been and continue to be ruthlessly sold out by the “Town Council” for their own gain.

For a time, it seemed that the imminent transition to a non-profit organization would provide rank-and-file burners with some relief from the fleecing; now, however, the Directors have about-faced on the idea of leaving their catbird seats, and insist that we need their leadership so badly that it would be irresponsible of them to abandon us.

Calls to get rid of the corporate old guard in favor of a totally transparent, representative leadership for Burning Man have been made before; most of the heavy hitters in the history of burner dissent, though, have long since given up trying to fight Black Rock City Hall. They may have been entirely correct in throwing in the towel in despair and disgust then, but the transition to a non-profit promises a huge opportunity for a total restructuring of the LLC from the bottom up, so if ever there was a time to get civic-minded and take a good, hard, realistic stance about how our festival-city is run, it’s now. . . because “non-profit corporation” doesn’t mean the usual gang of suspects can’t continue to line their pockets with corporate lucre instead of using it to better serve the community.

It’s time to get a serious dialogue going about our non-profit future, and about who will lead us into it. It’s time to get serious about regime change.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[This is the end of the article. For those interested in the source material used to write this article, including details of Chai Guy and DaBomb’s clash with the Burning Man LLC over their deal with the Discovery Channel and the New York Times, presents the following roughly organized heap of data, most of it written by Chai Guy, DaBomb, representatives of the LLC, and/or contributors to forums like eplaya. We’d like to thank Chai Guy and DaBomb for their valiant efforts in service of the community]

During the Spring and Summer of 2005, in the days leading up to the Burning Man Festival, the Discovery Channel/New York Times struck a deal with BMorg to film a reality TV show called “Only in America” during the event. Below are the known facts regarding this arrangement and the repercussions of these facts as they unfolded during the event.


Prior to the Burning Man Festival 2005, the Discovery Channel/New York Times works out a deal with the BMorg to film a reality TV show called “Only In America” at the event. And so it begins:

Discovery Channel/New York Times and the BMorg

Sometime prior to Burning Man 2005, the BMorg made an agreement with “Discovery Times”, a joint venture of two major media conglomerates Discovery Channel and New York Times. With 16 million subscribers, BMorg characterizes this joint venture as a “boutique” production company.

“Although no unusual trends appeared in 2005 in the number or size of the media groups approved to film this year, something about one particular media outlet pushed a few buttons for some Burning Man participants. Discovery Times is a boutique cable channel under the Discovery Channel umbrella in collaboration with the New York Times. Discovery Times applied to send a crew to do a first-person travel-show-style episode for its series “Only In America.” Three or four Discovery Channel applications were turned away in previous years, but this proposal had all the elements together and seemed prepared to make a solid piece about the event. Since deeply personal, firsthand coverage seems to tell Burning Man’s story the best, this proposal seemed a good fit. But some Burning Man participants took exception to this approval, citing displeasure with the commercial nature of the cable channel’s parent company and what they deemed a “reality TV” approach to television.

“It isn’t clear what about this proposal exactly pushed new buttons, since projects like it have been approved for years. Burning Man’s decision to approve the show was in line with its approach to media coverage since 1995 and even earlier. With respect for context and careful guidelines for the rights of participants, coverage like Discovery Times can in fact accurately capture the very newsworthy story of Black Rock City. As with any such coverage, Burning Man retains the right to review footage before it is broadcast through the careful use of entrance policies and written agreements. While no one wants to micromanage the creativity of any filmmaker, the Media team does work to protect Black Rock City by proactively keeping an eye on specific issues in coverage of the event.”

The exact scope as to the terms of the agreement is undisclosed by both BMorg and Discovery. However, a sum of money called a “site fee” was involved in which BMorg received payment for said agreement.

As Discovery began development for the production of a show, Todd Schindler of Discovery approaches various departments within Burning Man requesting support with the following correspondence:


My name is Todd Schindler and I’m a researcher for the Discovery Times Channel (a joint venture between Discovery Channel and The New York Times).

As part of our new documentary program “Only in America,” we’ll be attending Burning Man this year and filming an episode of the show. The program features Pulitzer Prize-winning NY Times journalist Charlie LeDuff as the host. At Burning Man, Charlie will be living at a theme camp and participating in all the goings-on of the camp.

We are hoping to get as well-rounded picture about what goes on at Burning Man as possible — including the logistics of setting up and breaking down, the maintenance of the city throughout the week, and also the work that the Black Rock Rangers do. To that end, we would love to be able to accompany some rangers as they make their rounds and/or speak to the person in charge of the rangers about the evolution and philosophy of the group. We hope this might be possible sometime during the week we are there. (We will be there from Sunday, Aug. 28 until Sunday, Sept. 4).

Please let me know if we can work out a time. I greatly appreciate your help.


Todd Schindler

Researcher, Discovery Times Channel

In response to this e-mail, according to information from Maid Marian, Todd was invited by some unknown person to embed with the Los Angeles Fire Conclave:

Within weeks of Todd Schindler’s e-mail an announcement is made that the Discovery Crew will be embedded with the Los Angeles Fire Conclave (LAFC).

Below is a statement made by DaBomb, a member of the LAFC.

September 2005

My playa name is DaBomb, and I’ve been a burner since 1998. Through the years, I’ve volunteered a great deal behind the scenes at Burning Man, a community I’m actively involved in both on and off the playa. For 2005 I came to the playa with a new dream: to perform as a fire dancer on burn night. In spring of 2005, I joined the Los Angeles Fire Conclave (LAFC) in pursuit of this dream.

My fire tool is the fire hoop. In order to participate in this year’s burn as a fire performer, myself and 3 other fire hoopers were required to include fire torches in our repertoire. To that end, we were also required by our squad leader to purchase our torches specifically from Bearclaw Manufacturing. Though there was some dissent from others within the squad as to this requirement, the squad leader insisted that he wanted uniformity within the performances and wanted all tools to look the same.

These seemed like small requirements for such an exciting occasion, and so I overlooked them at the time. All summer I regularly attended the practice meetings on Wednesday night with the rest of my squad. The enthusiasm and camaraderie of the LAFC increased with each passing week as the Burning Man Festival grew closer. I also diligently practiced on my own during my free time. As a member of the LAFC, strong skills in your chosen fire tool and fire safety training were required and I didn’t want to be cut. Sadly, as the summer wore on, some performers were dropped or left the conclave because they were unable to meet these conditions.

On Wednesday, August 17th, 2005 with only two weeks to go before Burning Man, TedWard LeCouteur, the shin of the LAFC, announced during a practice meeting that Todd Schindler of the Discovery Crew was present at that evening’s fire practice. TedWard further announced that the Discovery Crew would embed with the LAFC during this year’s burn. TedWard also happens to be the owner of Bearclaw Manufacturing.

TedWard’s announcement disturbed me and I took issue with it. I wanted to know who, on behalf of LAFC, invited the Discovery Crew and why. I also wanted to know why as a performance troupe, this invitation was not extended by a democratic vote. It was reprehensible to me that the Discovery Crew was granted special privileges with regards to performing inside the circle before the Man burns with the LAFC. I strongly believe that all fire performers desiring to perform with our conclave be made to adhere to the same rules and strict standards as all other members of LAFC. Specifically this person should have attended all mandatory meetings for LAFC and that this person should be competent with their tools. For a fact, the Discovery Team’s host did not attend LAFC’s mandatory meetings that summer. Todd Schindler was merely a researcher for the show, and not the host himself. Therefore, the skill level of the show’s host was unknown.

My concerns sparked a heated debate between TedWard and myself.

Finally, a response to my issues with the Discovery Team’s involvement with LAFC came in the form of these words from Maid Marian:

“re: the LA Fire Conclave. A member of the conclave INVITED the Discovery folks there. So, I’d look to that person and his/her desire for personal exposure before you point to us or Discovery for their uninvited intrusion.”

This information was very illuminating, however I have not had the opportunity to discuss this with TedWard, so I do not know if it was indeed him that invited the Discovery Team to participate with the LAFC. As it turned out, much to my relief, they did not participate in our performance at Burning Man this year.

Love & Rockets,


August 18, 2005 to present

Upon news of Discovery Channel/New York Times involvement and intended filming at the event, the community of Black Rock City begins to voice dissent and a letter campaign to BMorg begins:

The Community’s Response to Media Presence at Burning Man 2005

Immediately after the news leaks, a letter writing campaign ensues to BMorg as members of the Black Rock City community react negatively to Discovery’s presence at the event. Maid Marian, Mistress of Communications for BMorg, characterizes this response at first as a “big stink” and is unable or unwilling to comprehend why. As the e-mails pour in, she rephrases her comments calling it “a groundswell.”

As of yet, all these hard asked questions go unanswered by BMorg. BMorg continues to receive e-mails on this issue to present day.

E-mail from Burning Anne (the Scarf Thief):

September 18, 2005

Dear please don’t be “Made” Marian,

I am hoping the above is a hoax of some kind. As a 7 year citizen of the Burningman “community” I was horrified to receive the above information. How can you even consider accepting money to “commercialize” an event that has prided itself on non commercialization? I’m sure you realize this would destroy any future events, not to mention that all true burners would find this outrageously hypocritical. In a time of lying politicians and no escape from corruption and profiteering Burningman is our only refuge. Do not take this away from us!

I think you should also know that for the past few years word on the Playa is many people asking where all the 37,000 x $220 hefty and getting heftier fees are going. Obviously profit is already being made. While this is uncomfortable to accept, it is still acceptable. Selling out is not.

I urge you to not sign off on this – if you do had better give it back in kind to us folks who created this great city for you on our sweat and dollars.

E-mail from mstephrussell:

Saturday, September 17 2005

I am a 3rd time attendee of the Burning Man Event, just recently back. It was at this year’s BM that I heard some individuals speaking on stage at Center Camp in regards to an arrangement between the Discovery Channel and the Burning Man Project. Wait, let’s back up for a sec.

Early on in my introduction to the Burning Man, in the first year before I went out three years ago, I attended a free lecture in my town by Larry Harvey. I had heard about the Burning Man for years before that, and had talked to different folks who had gone, and I was curious. It was then that I met Larry, chatted with him briefly, and had the opportunity to hear directly about the principles that the Burning Man was based on and operated on, when I decided to participate. “An Experiment in Community Dictated by Extreme Survival Conditions. Radical Self _Expression.” Upon the first year, I got a real first person experience. The community, the art work, and the beautiful desert all together was well worth the trip, and I have made the commitment each year since to devote my own resources to the Burning Man. I have been honored to be a participant in and a citizen of Black Rock City. I was told from Day One at the gate of BRC “Welcome Home”, and I took it to heart.

I view that participation as a contract of good faith that exists three ways between myself, the other attendees, and the Burning Man Project. Now, after the fact I am finding out that I am unwitting player in a TV show that I never agreed to. I am participating in a small way, or a big way, either way in another mechanism to sell product.

I remember a few years ago, I am in the airport (I might have been in route to BRC). In a hurry to get to my destination, and about to enter a moving sidewalk, I almost miss the sign posted on the front of it. I don’t recall the exact wording, but the jist of it was that I was being recorded for a reality show on airports, and if I did not concede to this filming, that I should go right away to the proper authorities to inform them of my intentions. I am sure that most travelers did not even notice the post, nor did they have the time between connecting flights, and /or TSA probings to go chase down some bureaucrat to protect their own privacy. Well, personally I made the call to step on board the treadmill to sell more crap, and engaged in a series of lewd gestures that would most likely insure that my presence end up on the editing room floor. Never saw the show, but I did hear an advertisement for it one time, and it occured to me then what production value they got by cutting that labor cost down to next to nothing, no paid talent, just concept people and editors. Oh, and one little check written to the airport.

I have deep personal connection to the Burning Man, and a large part of the whole experience is that I make this journey once a year across vast distance into harsh survival conditions in order to get away from the trappings of commercialism. Now I am reminded to what extent those who need to sell colored bubbles will go to find fresh meat to fillet. I don’t know all the details of the deal, and most of the time I would not give a care, but this time around I do care, very much so. Burning Man is not just the Project. Burning Man would not exist without the people who come to make it happen, and Burning Man belongs to everyone who came thru that gate, including me.

So, I would greatly appreciate some straight talk. From what I understand, the Project agreed to have a crew from Discovery Channel attend the event and shoot footage for use in a television show to be broadcast. Was the BMP in on this undertaking, and if so were they paid a fee for it, and why was the community not told about it before hand? Will the community have an opportunity to have a say in whether or not this show is broadcast or released in any way? What if Discovery decides to ignore the wishes of the BMP and do what it wants with this content? Is the BMP really prepared to enter into an expensive legal battle with a big boy like Discovery with deep legal pockets? What are your intentions?

E-mail from DaBomb:

August 23, 2005

Thanks for your response [to my previous e-mail]. However, this response can hardly be called an answer to my questions. I can appreciate how busy your are on the playa at the moment. And I respectfully tender this reply:

In reference to your comment about “balance between the “community” and the Project” (and I find it telling that you capitalized the “project”, but placed quotation marks when referencing the Participants) I’m a little unclear. I always thought the project was the community?

You see, Larry Harvey remarked at the genesis of the Project in 1986: “An entire community converged around the sculpture. It was more than a sculpture; it was a presence. A presence that invited interaction.”

How is interaction encouraged through a television program?

You yourself once said about the Project: “We don’t encourage radical self-expression so people can find themselves for sale in a video store.” So, I’m just wondering if now, 19 years since the beginning of the event, it’s OK to find myself for sale on cable TV?

Why use a televised show to promote an event that is antithetical to the very corporate/commoditization model that is being used to broadcast it?

Without all the facts, I don’t know what to make of the Discovery Channel/New York Times deal. I feel it has the potential of taking us, somewhere that we, the participants, don’t want to go. If commoditization is where the leadership of the event wants to direct us towards, I would ask that it state its intentions clearly so that myself and everyone involved can make a decision on whether to continue supporting it with our money, time, art and volunteerism.

I am very disturbed at the notion that the Burning Man Project is unwittingly turning its “community” into a “commodity”. I am trying to preserve the integrity of the event.

So, in the spirit of my mission, (and when you have a moment) please, endeavor to explain how creating a reality television program for mass consumption, how this serves to benefit both the Community and the Project as whole?

Perhaps its true, as a friend of mine within BMorg has told me, nobody is getting rich by putting on this event. But it’s also true that this event is not headed by a bunch of starving artists either. I believe it’s run by a intelligent and well meaning individuals who need to understand that the community makes the event. Not the other way around.

E-mail from Chai Guy:

August, 22, 2005

I am writing to tell you that I am saddened and disappointed with the decision to allow The Discovery Times Channel to film at Burning Man this year. To that end I have a few questions.

1. How much money will Burning Man LLC be receiving from this project and how much of that money will be given back to the artists featured in the film (if any)?

2. Is there a method to “opt-out” of having your image or art filmed for this project? If so, what is it?

3. Will this project ever be sold in other formats? Who owns the rights to the images filmed? Are there any licensing fees or stipulations for promotional tie-ins or products associated with this agreement (i.e. calendars from photos of the event, etc.)?

4. If nudity is filmed, will that nudity be aired without censorship (blurs. black bars etc.) in the European or other markets? Will the “nude” footage ever be released in a secondary format such as a DVD, or streaming video on a website?

5. To what degree will Burning Man LLC have artistic control over the final product? Will Burning Man LLC be able to veto any footage for any reason?

6. What steps will Burning Man LLC be taking to prevent the Discovery Times Channel from filming participants who do not wish to be filmed? If unwilling participants are filmed and that film is aired, will Burning Man LLC file litigation on behalf of that participant for invasion of privacy or intellectual property rights theft?

7. Do you, at this time have the camera tag # for this film crew(s) and if so what is it? If you do not have the tag # at this time, will it made available upon request at Media Mecca during the event?

I appreciate your consideration and time in this matter.

E-mail from Dr. Ratbite LaRue:

Sunday, August 21, 2005

So far, I find this issue very unpleasant.

BM LLC is accepting money to let large corporation come to BRC and SPECTATE. TDC will then turn around and sell what they produce (through advertising revenue) for profit. This product is going to be distributed through the largest all-spectator/non-participant medium that exists – television – and the right to get a corporation/product/brand associated with TDC presentation on Burning Man will go to the highest bidder.

BM LLC is going to get a chunk of that money, but what Burning Man is selling is the art, time, creativity and effort of a lot of people that PAY for the privilege of coming to BRC to PARTICIPATE.

To me this feels like the time and creativity of the people that make Burning Man a reality (as opposed to people like you that do the hard work to make BM possible) is being commoditized and sold out from under them without permission any form of compensation.

TDC wants to come to BM for one reason only … because they can make money doing it.

Without all the people that buy tickets, bring art, and PARTICIPATE, there would be nothing for BM LLC to sell to TLC except a nice wind fence, a big tent and a lot of portable toilets. What do you think they would pay for just that?

I am interested in knowing what TLC is paying to BM to come out and produce a show. If you are going to respond that this information is confidential I hope you will give a detailed explanation of why this is and has to be confidential. If BM agreed in advance with TLC not to share this information with the people that are going to make this show possible, let me say in advance, that stinks.

At the moment there is a small, but growing contingent of people that will looking to find this production with the aim of giving an alternative point of view of how unwelcome, unpopular this production is.

E-mail from Alanna:

Sunday, August 21, 2005

I have talked to others who have read the thread on [about the Discovery Channel at Burning Man this year] and no one is happy about it. Not only does it feel like an invasion of personal space in our COMMUNITY, but you are selling us out to do so. Many feel betrayed, confused and angry. Some (I know) have chosen not to go because of this.

It chips away at the very meaning of what this annual gathering is about and what we all so eagerly look forward to and prepare for year after year.

The beauty of Burning Man is that it is a COMMUNITY that functions without the exchange of money (mostly) and it gives to us all a renewed sense of trust, value, love and belief in the people around us. It’s an important energy that we all look forward to sharing anad holding onto for as long as we can.

But when huge conglomerates come in to “observe” us (as if we’re on display for their enjoyment), pay the BM-LLC fees to do so and the those that work so hard to make this COMMUNITY what it is do not have any say so in it whatsoever, it makes me wonder what this COMMUNITY is really about? What is the true nature of the relationship betweem the COMMUNITY and the BM LLC? I want to know WHY the BM LLC has chosen to do this. I want to know WHAT they are getting out of having the Discovery Times come in to our COMMUNITY. What is the point of this?

E-mail from Diode:

Sun, August 21, 2005

I wish to express my disappointment at the decision of the Burning Man organization to allow the Discovery Channel to produce a documentary at the burn which will be shown on commercial TV.

I have watched the preview clip for the series on the Discovery Channel website, which was preceded by a cute Mr. Clean shower brush commercial. I see no redeeming value in the series beyond the monetary value it may produce for Burning Man LLC. No redeeming value is also a euphemism for cheap schlock show for pop culture television.

The previous documentaries about the festival were, as far as I know, produced by people with an inherent interest and participation in the Burning Man project, and the quality and intimacy of their work reflected this. Though the end pieces were sometimes sold in commercial venues, at least they were works of love and creativity.

I don’t see how anyone affiliated with the Burning Man event could see this decision as any other than a complete reversal of the precepts that underlay the event, that have been put forth by Larry Harvey and the Burning Man LLC time and time again as its founding principals. I refer to the concept that the Burn is a noncommercial event where the participants are free to produce the unique community and art which lies at the soul of the festival in an field of radical self-expression.

Is my art and activity that may come under the Discovery crew cameras going to be displayed on millions of televisions for couch potatoes world-wide? Will the nudity and excess which occur frequently at Burning Man going to end up on DVD’s sold through commercial channels?

I’m sure there is a justification and rationale for this decision, which I and others attending the burn this year would like to hear from the BM LLC if only to satisfy our curiosity as to why you allowed this to come to pass.

Thanks for your time. I intend to do my utmost to be a unique creative spark of intelligence at the festival this year as every year and I wish you well in your work.

August 29 – September 5, 2005

The Discovery Team begins taping at the Burning Man Arts Festival 2005:

Discovery Crew on the Playa

The Discovery Team arrives at Burning Man 2005 and “interacts” with the Community. Below are eyewitness accounts of this exchange.

As posted by Chai Guy – Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:54 pm

The producer pulled up to the MOUSETRAP in an undecorated golf cart and walked up the individual in charge and said:

“Ok, charlie is going to be here in like 15 minutes so everything set? We wanna see something spectacular so make sure you smash something that will look really impressive on camera ok?”

someone over hearing this shouted out “How about your golf cart?””

to which the crowd began chanting “Golf Cart, Golf Cart, Golf Cart!!”

As posted by Kernul Killbuck – Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:24 pm

On Tuesday night, as Miniman begged his father to acknowledge him… which he eventually did… I was approached by the Discovery crew for an interview. They did fully describe why they were, and what they were there for– and said they would not film me without a signed release.

Well, being a (sorta) shameless self promoter, I fully agreed. As the interview began, a fellow in a tan suit with an accent began to question my responses to the question of “what Burning Man means.” He was rather good at it… but so am I– profession don’t you know… and I enjoyed the barbed banter. I also had the advantage of having seen this person also engage another in an interview a few minutes before off in the distance- but when he came forward with me, I understood he was no average BRC citizen, but the appointed shill, there to do the job of having the interviewee question his or her own assumptions.

In the end, I left them with a laughing phrase they surely will never use, even on cable.

As posted by DaMongolian – Thursday, September 8, 2005 – 4:10 PM

hah!!! I had a first hand interaction with the DCT crew this year.

It was Saturday afternoon, and I was leading the pyro perimeter team around the man, so that the pyro team could load the fireworks etc without being disturbed. Anyway, at one point, the crew up on top of The Man started yelling that someone was throwing eggs, after a few moments, I identified the offender, who was being filmed by a film crew. I jumped in to interact as the Pyro team was mighty pissed (not to mention nervous….initially they didn’t know what was being thrown, and wether or not it might ignite what they were working on) Initially, I started out a little hot, because I was being protective of the pyro team. So when I saw that the film crew was now filming my interaction with the host, I asked them not to film, and they quickly complied by turning the camera away.

After a few moments of talk with the egg thrower, I realized that this was the (infamous) DCT crew, after confirming this with the film crew, I told them to go ahead and film, somehow this knowledge also helped me to relax a little. Turns out the host, had interviewed Larry, the day before and asked if he could throw an egg at the man…..something which any other day of the week would not have been a big deal. (other than the moop factor) But as it turns out…..they picked the day of the burn, during the pyro load in to do that particular shoot. I explained the situation, and they were very apologetic. After, I signed a release. Then….one of the producers pulled me aside and said sheepishly….when he threw the egg….we weren’t filming….any chance we can just get a shot of him going through the motion, he won’t actually throw it.

I thought about it for a second, and then asked them to do it as a cut away from farther away from the man….(at about the L2K ring) As luck would have it….it wasn’t far enough away, the Pyro team saw it, and freaked out again, even calling into their Supe and asking that the crew be ejected from the event. Once again, I interacted and explained what I had ‘okayed’ thankfully they got it that time, and I told them to go far far away from the man, until that evening for the burn. As far as I know, they did.

I personally, have no problem with them filming or with the way the crew behaved themselves….the host….well…..he might be a bit of a yahoo and an ass…(or at least his screen persona is) but then….there are plenty of other asses at BM….so big deal.

September 4th, 2005

The day after the burn, the Black Rock City Community Collective sets up a panel discussion at Center Camp inviting both BMorg and the Discovery Team to attend.

Panel Discussion at Center Camp

In an effort to encourage a dialogue between the BMorg and the Community, the Black Rock City Community Collective prepares for a panel discussion of all interested parties on this issue. Namely the Community, the BMorg, and their invited guests: the Discovery Crew. Below is a full account of what happened.

During the week of Burning Man 2005, members of the Black Rock City Community Collective tried to initiate contact with the Discovery Crew, going first to Media Mecca in an effort to locate them. Since all video cameras are required to be tagged at the event, an enquiry was made as to the camera tag number. The volunteer at Media Mecca either feigned ignorance or did not actually know the answer. This is disturbing. If they did not know what Discovery Channel’s tag number was, how would they be able to take any actions against them in the event that complaint was filed?

Finally, after more stonewalling, we were introduced to the Discovery Crew, who became immediately defensive and wanted to know what the camera tag number was wanted for. It was explained that it was necessary to identify the crew so that members of the Community could make an informed decision with regards to consent to be filmed.

Only then did the Discovery crew come forward, introducing themselves individually, including Charlie LeDuff, the host of the show. Ironically, hanging out in Media Mecca is Discovery’s idea of “participation” at Burning Man. As it turned out, they were waiting for the “B crew” to get back from filming cut-away shots. Unfortunately they didn’t know what their camera tag number was either!

After this encounter, arrangements were made to put on a panel discussion at Center Camp on Sunday, September 4th at 3:00 p.m. Numerous invitations were hand-written and personally delivered to members of BMorg at First Camp and the Discovery Channel film crew to participate in this public discussion.

On Sunday, with about a half hour to go before the scheduled stage time, we found Action Girl at Media Mecca, who listened to our complaints, but declined to take part in the public discussion. She seemed mystified why the Discovery Channel was targeted and not ABC’s hour long featured piece (for yet another cheesy magazine format that is slickly packaged for mass consumption). It really is tragic that Action Girl seemed so clueless as to why the Community is upset by these actions.

In the end (and somewhat as expected) nobody from either side attended the panel discussion. Both BMorg’s and the Discovery Team’s conspicuous absence served as a golden opportunity to make a Public Service Announcement instead of the originally planned discussion. The announcement was short but sweet, and was met with a great deal of booing and hissing from the Center Camp audience. The discussion continued off-stage for about 15 minutes.

Friday, July 7 2006

“Wife Swap” on ABC Television / Craigslist

Here’s something that was on CraigsList yesterday (since pulled) and followed by an e-mail forwarded to us by a friend of the Black Rock City Community Collective. The posting is starkly different than the personal e-mail.

We have since contacted Andie Grace and Maid Marian, the Communications Department at BM-org to investigate this and are awaiting their response.

> Subject: (creative gigs) Going to Burning Man? (financial district)
> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: “Craigslist Subscriptions” <>
> Reply-To:
> ABC TV is currently researching & interviewing families who attend
> Ideal candidates believe in self-reliance, expression, and community.
> Please call:212-404-2442 or email a family photo and description to:
> All families featured on the show receive a $20,000 honorarium. If
> you refer a family that we feature on the show you receive $1,000.
> Apply Today. Casting immediately!

Thu, July 6, 2006 – 9:00 AM

Subject ABC TV: Looking for BURNERS

Hi Abject,

I’m a casting producer for ABC TV. We’re researching
Burners in hopes of featuring a family of Burners on
our primetime reality show WIFE SWAP. I’m wondering if
you’d consider posting my search and sharing it with
your tribe.

All families featured on the show receive a $20,000
honorarium. If you refer a family that we feature on
the show you receive $1,000.

Potential families can live anywhere in the United
States, but we ask that families applying for the show
consist of two parents and have at least one child,
age 5 or older, living at home.

Casting immediately.



Thursday, May 18, 2006

“Only In America” Breach of Contract

On February 2, 2006, “Only In America-Burning Man” aired. In the show DaBomb’s image was broadcast without her knowledge or consent. DaBomb would like to know if this has happened to others.

If this has happened to you — if the unlawful use of your image, art or performance — was used on this episode of “Only In America”, please contact the Black Rock City Community Collective or DaBomb.

Monday, April 3, 2006

Response to Jack Rabbit Speaks

On March 30th, the Jack Rabbit Speaks posted the following:

> : Is it true that there was a reality TV show being filmed on playa
> this year?
> A rumor began before the event this year that the Discovery
> Channel would be filming a reality TV show in Black Rock City.
> The show was Discovery Times, which focuses on alternative
> culture, such as power tool races, etc. Mainstream media has
> been coming to Burning Man for ten years now. Recently the
> organization held our annual staff retreat for over 100 of our
> managers. A group of non Media Department staff, who
> were troubled about the Discovery Times piece, discussed the
> decision to allow Discovery Times to film. The staff members
> concluded that after analyzing the decision they felt the problem is
> that our participants do not understand our media selection
> process. If you fall into this category and want to learn more then
> please visit

It appears that this valid question (e.g is it true a reality tv show was filmed) was not answered, but buried in an explanation and a justification as to why media is at the event.

It is indeed a fact and not a rumor that Discovery-Times “Only In America” is a reality television show. And by BMorg’s own admission (listen to BURNcast #1), it is also true that it paid a site fee for the privilege to film at Burning Man.

Even the New York Times, the partner company for the Discovery-Times network identifies this show as “reality programming”. On September 2, 2005, New York Times review by Carlo Rotello, made the following comments about the show calling it what it is: “The need to construct a reality-show plot arc, clumsily signposted with portentous teasers and galumphing mood music, also hamstrings Mr. LeDuff’s reporting.” Below is the article in it’s entirety.

As of yet, the JRS has yet to suppport or announce BURNcast, podcasts that resulted in our efforts here at SaveBRC, in an effort to educate the community about media presence at Burning Man.

These podcasts (which include interviews with Andie Grace, Larry Harvey, Danger Ranger and Maid Marian) were recorded two days before this show aired reflect a positive resolution to the questions raised by They go in great depth how the media process works at Burning Man. In fact, Twan, the Los Angeles regional rep posted it to the LA Burners list when they first were released.

We’ve been were holding off on publishing the next Burncast until the JRS announcement took place because of concerns with issues of bandwidth if all three podcasts were posted at once and announced at the same time. At an average size of 30 mb per show, the downloads may be overwhelming.

The podcasts have thus far been submitted several times to BMorg.

Surely Burning Man supports independent media as well as commercial media?


September 2, 2005

Answering Call of America’s Weirdness


Every once in a while, maybe three times an episode (to judge from the first two), “Only in America” produces a moment that stays with you.

Dan, a member of an Oakland biker club called the East Bay Rats, describes the long-ago humiliation of being gang-stomped while his friends looked on and did nothing. It can’t happen to him again, he says, now that he’s a Rat. (Of course, you have to endure a group beating from fellow Rats when you join the club, and members regularly pound each other in a makeshift ring while friends cheer them on during informal fight nights, but people are complicated.)

Dan chokes up and walks away from Charlie LeDuff, the show’s host, who stands there with his chin in his palm. The camera lingers, allowing another Rat to wander into the frame and exchange a sympathetic look with Mr. LeDuff behind Dan’s back. Everything the episode wants to address, especially the urge to ratify community with intramural violence, hangs unspoken in the air between them.

In another episode, Mr. LeDuff, wearing fancy Western wear chosen by two cowboys who ride on the gay rodeo circuit, visits Thad Balkman, a Republican state representative from Oklahoma who crusades against gay marriage. After some inconclusive political fencing, Mr. LeDuff shows off his new threads to Mr. Balkman, who pronounces them “very handsome.” When Mr. LeDuff asks if he looks gay in his getup, Mr. Balkman says, “No, it kind of looks like a Roy Rogers kind of deal.” Mr. Balkman is so bland that at first you might not notice he’s kidding.

Mr. LeDuff, a reporter for The New York Times, claims to have a populist agenda for “Only in America,” which has its premiere tonight on the Discovery Times Channel. “There’s so much stuff going on in this country that’s not covered correctly,” he says, and covering it correctly, for him, means participating: fighting in the ring, riding a bull in the rodeo. “You should certainly live, feel, breathe, eat and understand the way the other people do.” He adds, “I put my body out there so the guy on the couch watching might understand the guy he won’t talk to.”

America’s enduring weirdness beckons to an enterprising reporter seeking resonant subcultures. In addition to bikers and gay rodeo riders, Mr. LeDuff will visit arena football players, fashion models, battle re-enactors and others. Find a scene, work your way into it, hang out, point the camera at people with something to say and let them say it. You can’t go wrong.

Actually, you can. Mr. LeDuff too often gets between us and the people he wants to introduce to us. He has a sense of humor, and one can appreciate the gameness of a reporter who will dress up in drag to fall off a steer, but there’s just too much of him, and he can’t seem to get over himself. His overstyled voiceovers do little to frame the action in an explanatory bigger picture, and he takes up too much screen time. He talks too much, and too often he’s talking about himself. “These guys respect me, like, I’m a gamer,” he says of the East Bay Rats. Even if true, the line makes you wince.

One also grows tired of Mr. LeDuff’s self-regarding need to mark his territory. Depending on whom he’s hanging out with, he will start droppin’ his g’s and otherwise broadening his variable regular-guy diction. When he offers an analytical insight – for instance, when women fight, “it’s kinda hot” – he’ll put some extra stoner drag in his voice to assure us he’s no egghead. Hanging with the head Rat at ringside, Mr. LeDuff is moved to remark, “You’re like the Svengali of a lost generation, man.”

“Well,” says the guy, “at least I throw a good party.”

The need to construct a reality-show plot arc, clumsily signposted with portentous teasers and galumphing mood music, also hamstrings Mr. LeDuff’s reporting.

Each episode has a sustained gimmick. Charlie’s going to fight a giant Rat named Big Mike. Charlie’s not going to let any gay wannabe cowboy outride him. Will he walk out or be carried out? It’s forced and lame, and it suggests that “Only in America” doesn’t trust regular weird American folks to hold our interest.


Thursday, February 9, 2006

Egging the Man

The following was posted on Eplaya today from PyroChix, in reponse to Charlie LeDuff egging the man:


Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:11 am

Post subject: Charlie’s Egg Throwing Stunt

I’m part of the pyro crew that was working on the man, setting up the fireworks for the night of the burn when Mr. LeDuff decided to unleash his artistic impression by throwing eggs at the Man. While seemingly innocuous, he threatened the lives of everyone on that structure. In the intense dryness and static hell that is the Playa, if that egg had knocked into something the wrong way, the explosion you saw during the Burn would’ve happened that afternoon… taking all of the pyro crew as well as Mr. LeDuff and the Rangers on duty to an explosive death.

By airing this act, Discovery Channel and the LLC not only condone his act of irresponsibility, they also promote future idiots to follow suit. There’s a reason we have a safety perimeter on the day of the Burn, yet the LLC and Discovery Channel are representing that they refuse to understand the potential danger involved.

LeDuff has no idea how close he came to dying that day, whether from the potential explosion or the number of us that had to be restrained from kicking the crap out of him for endangering our lives. No where else in America except for Burning Man would Mr. LeDuff get away with a blatant act of potential manslaughter without being thrown into jail for at least a harsh talking to. Instead, he’s getting noteriety from it.

Had the explosion occured, anything having to do with Burning Man’s fire related activities would instantly be shut down because the pyrotechnician whose license the event depends on would have died. The insurance companies and legal authorities including the BLM would have to shut down the event as well. There would be no Burning Man if Mr. LeDuff’s act of “artistic expression” set off an explosion. The chances that his actions could have set off an explosion were high, easily 50%. That Saturday had high levels of static electricity due to several white outs. I’m not speaking as an alarmist, I’m a realist, and I know that I could easily have died that day.

I’ll be writing to the LLC and Discovery Channel regarding this act. I’m speaking for myself and not necessarily all the pyro crew members, but I want it to be on record that if anyone in future years pulls a stunt similar, legal repercussions will be sought against the LLC, Discovery Channel, and Mr. LeDuff for their irresponsible validation of hazardous acts. I invite anyone else who plans on writing to the LLC, Discovery Channel, or Charlie LeDuff to make use of my comments here. If you do so, however, I would like to know about it just for reference.

Sunday, February 5, 2006

Rip, Edit, Burn

The latest edition of the JRS mentions our still-in-production-and-upcoming podcast with the Burning Man organization and characterizes our visit to BMHQ as a positive conclusion. We wholeheartedly agree. At the moment the producers, Chai Guy and DaBomb are in the the midst of putting the material together. Though we are working to upload this podcast in a reasonable timeframe, there are logistical issues due to the physical distance between the two (Chai Guy lives in Lake Tahoe, DaBomb in Los Angeles) to be able to collaborate effectively. They are both working fast as they can while still doing their full-time jobs, learning the technical aspects of the producing the podcast and creating a meaningful piece for our listeners and for the community. Please…stay tuned…it’s coming soon!

Friday, February 3, 2006

We give it a thumbs down!

Last night, the show “Only In America” aired. Many have contacted us to ask us what we think of the show.

We’d like to take this moment to remind y’all that when we first brought up the issue of Discovery Channel’s presence at Burning Man, we took issues with the commercialization and exploitation of the event, privacy rights and an artist’s right and ownership to their art and performance. We did not set out to be arbiters of taste of this show.

Therefore, our main mission in setting up is focused on these issues and not about our personal critique of this particular show.

That’s our party line and we’re sticking to it.

Having said that, many of you have insisted: peee-shaw…what did ya REALLY think of the show?

Well…um…OK…here ya go:

DaBomb’s Review:

I’m offended by people who are outsiders that try to appear to be an insider. Charlie LeDuff aka “Media Man” (who has provided further evidence that the New York Times isn’t worth the paper that it is printed on) pretends to get involved, makes pseudo observations and interpretations and doesn’t actually try to feel the environment that he parades around in. Media Man ends up being a saccharin caricature of sophomoric pretense and posture. His show is about himself, not the cultures that he purports to explore.

Of course he had the mohawk before arriving. He had already decided what Burning Man was before he arrived. His mind wasn’t open. He wasn’t experiencing the now. “Its like Vegas North.” Why do small minds have so much trouble understanding what is around them? His mind couldn’t see the Temple. Fire breathing wasn’t elemental to him, it was a novelty. In Media Man’s own words: “The more I see America, the less I get it.”

Just my two cents. Your mileage may vary.

Chai Guy’s Review:

I want to make it clear that my objection to this show was not about the content, but rather the nature of the show, (Reality TV), the undisclosed site fees, the behavior of the crew at the event, and the commodification of Burning Man.

The original concept of the “Only in America” show didn’t seem half bad. Follow a Burning Man virgin around as he experiences the event for the first time. Unfortunately that idea got lost somewhere. They replaced it with something ripped right out of the Official Burning Man Press Kit: “Become your alter ego or spoof the media itself.” Source:

The “spoof” being Media Man, and I can only guess that Charlie’s “alter-ego” must be Hunter S. Thompson??

You would think that a week on the playa would provide for more than an hour’s worth of spontaneous, film worthy events, apparently not for Charlie LeDuff. We see Charlie ride his bike through the Greeter Gate, why not just film him arriving in his vehicle? We see Charlie being given a mohawk on the playa, but if you looked closely at the previous scenes, you’d have seen that he already had the mohawk before he came to Black Rock City.

Two weeks prior to the event Charlie was set to spin fire in the circle before the man burned with the LA Fire Conclave, allegedly by invitation of their leader, Tedward. That idea (along with letting Charlie do a “ride along” with the Black Rock Rangers) was vetoed before he got to the Playa. So the next best thing apparently was to teach Charlie how to breathe fire. Tedward being the good self-promoter that he is wears a t-shit with his company’s name on it (nice product placement Tedward!). He also works the phrase “Only in America”, the title of the series, into his interview with Charlie. Being the consummate L.A. actor, Tedward asks Charlie “Can we take five?” when his friends show up in their RV.

A good deal of time is spent with Tedward teaching Charlie how to breathe fire. This is where the show degenerates into what “Only In America” is really about, which is placing Charlie in “extreme” circumstances and allowing the reality TV show arch to happen.

Charlie rides his bike to the man saying, “I’m worked up enough to egg the man to see if I get beaten to a pulp”. He even calls throwing eggs at the man his “Radical Self Expression”. We all know it was a staged event; he threw his first egg at the man and pissed off the pyro team who were busy getting the structure ready for the burn. A Black Rock Ranger intervened and convinced him to “pretend” to throw the egg from a distance further back, and that’s what you see on TV. He then gets into an altercation with someone, who cracks an egg over Charlie’s head, but look closely and you’ll see the producer secure the egg from Charlie after whispering in his ear before she hands it off to the “angry participant”. Aside from an admonishment by the Ranger to “pick up your egg shells” the Leave No Trace ethos of the event gets left in the dust.

Charlie interviews a couple that is about to be married by a “Shaman” (who, incidentally, gushes on camera ” I really love the Discovery Channel!”). Charlie proceeds to make fun of the ceremony and the “Bio Chemist from the Northwest wearing black face, spouting half baked American Indian mysticism” apparently Charlie completely misses the irony that he’s been sporting a mohawk the entire week.

Upon hearing the news of Hurricane Katrina, Charlie heads off to a radio station to get the word out. Talking on the air with the radio host, Charlie becomes rather incoherent as he drifts from discussion of Katrina to the war in Iraq to a potential military draft and after a requested moment of silence (for what, I’m not exactly sure, the war, the hurricane? both?) he launches into an acapella version of “This Land Is Your Land”. You kind of get the feeling here that Charlie thinks he’s missing the story of the century, but isn’t sure what to do about it. Unfortunately he doesn’t stick around to see the money raised by participants for hurricane relief as they leave BRC, or the support offered by members of the community in the weeks and months following.

For most of the show Charlie seems rather obsessed with drug use at the event. He mentions the word “drugs” five times, as well as statements like “Some people stay high for days on end”, “They like to get high”, “Some don’t care and just stay wasted”, “Mind Freak”,” Trip out”, and “Just Groovin”. Listening to his “Hippie Speak”, it’s difficult for me to remember that he and I are of the same generation.

The show does have a few moments of saving grace. These occur when participants are allowed to express themselves to the camera, in their own words. Kernul Killbuck does an excellent job of tilting Charlie off his game (I don’t think Charlie likes to be touched), and delivering a great soliloquy on the event and the burning of the man. The interviews with artists like Matteo of “Head Space” were also well done.

Unfortunately those moments are few and far between. The flow is too often interrupted by Charlie’s narration, which offers very little insight into Burning Man or even his own personal experience. His lack of research is readily apparent, he refers to the Black Rock Rangers as “cops”, the event as “Las Vegas North” (twice actually), and the Temples of Dreams as the “Faux Buddhist Temple”. The most interesting question he can think to ask Larry Harvey is “Why?” and then proceeds to look bored out of his mind during the response. I honestly expected a little more from a New York Times reporter.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

High Noon at BMHQ

That’s it. We quit. It’s true: if you can’t beat’em, join’em. Forget Discovery Channel. It’s all about independent media! Read on:

First of all, thanks for taking the time to express your opinion about corporate media such as Discovery Channel at Burning Man and also signing the petition on For those of you who are interested, the show “Only In America” will air on February 2 at 8:00 p.m. on Discovery Times Channel.

As an interesting side note NO MENTION of the Discovery Times Channel “Only in America” Burning Man episode has been mentioned on the official Burning Man website or in the latest version of “The Jack Rabbit Speaks” newsletter (which DID happen to mention an upcoming piece on the event happening on “Current TV”, but didn’t offer many details). If Burning Man is so proud of this thing, why not let everyone know about it? Makes us wonder.

It has been quite a road since we first launched the website. At first we simply forwarded the petitions to BMorg directly. However, ActionGirl (AKA Andie Grace) the Director of Communications, complained that the first 40 petitions crashed her email client and implied that our efforts had caused a denial of service attack or something…pshhhawww!

After we cleared that misunderstanding up, we came to agreement with ActionGirl in which we were to hand deliver the petitions to BMorg offices (wearing tutus) as well as an opportunity to view the footage that BMorg was to approve and sign off on*. But then, BMorg reneged on this as well.

(*There was some disagreement on what footage we had been invited to view. Later Actiongrl stated that it wasn’t the Discovery Times footage, that it was some other footage, what footage she was actually referring to still isn’t really clear to us.)

Now ActionGrl and have agreed to hand-deliver the petitions…while wearing tutus…on Tuesday, January 31. Furthermore, ActionGrl has agreed to interview for a podcast for

Our interview with Actiongrl will focus on Burning Man, and the media and how each effect each other. We hope this will be the start of a regular monthly podcast on the event. If you have any interview questions you’d like us to ask Andie, please submit them ASAP (all questions need to be submitted by Monday, January 30th). Also, if you have any story or interview ideas for future podcasts or would like to be interviewed, give us a shout out as


Thanks so much and stay tuned!

Friday, October 14, 2005

Jack Rabbit Speaks With A Forked Tongue

The most recent edition of Jack Rabbit Speaks features an announcement about the upcoming Xingolati cruise that sounds distinctly like a commercial. In one sentence I read plugs for four different for-profit business ventures.

We believed that BMorg was trying to support regionals, not snub them in favor of Carnival Cruise event, which costs in excess of $500. In promoting the cruise, no mention of the Los Angeles Decompression was mentioned which takes place tomorrow, October 15th.

The JRS barely mentions the Los Angeles Decom in any of their publications or email newsletters. In fact it was only mentioned yesterday as an oversight if you can’t go on a cruise.

“Okay, if you can’t make the cruise, I KNOW it’s last minute, but I swear if it weren’t my down time I’d have let you know sooner. And, I know they’ll do it again;I have this feeling it’ll be a big success.”

This is out of the Jack Rabbit Speaks newsletter.

“The cruise in question is a highly commercial cruise featuring artists, Burning Man-types, bands (including Mutaytor) and art. But it also has a lot of corporate sponsorship, commercial and monetary goals and the spirit of Burning Man (Leave no trace, free expression, etc.) are not a part of the cruise. It is a corporate event.

Just today, Maid Marian posted a follow up to that edition of Jack Rabbit Speaks due in part to a huge response to it. In it she states: “[There] is no sellout here. I appreciate the passion and concern of everyone who I’ve heard from today. I’m not promoting that un-named cruise line [um…that’s a lie because she did]….There’s also no “sell out” going on with regard to any television shows, movies or other media outlets.”

Well, Maid Marian is mistaken because the Jack Rabbit Speaks *is* the official Burning Man news outlet, and it *was* being used to promote a corporate-for-profit venture and looking to monetarily benefit from plugging several commercial ventures. And Maid Marian herself wrote that copy! C-a-r-n-i-v-a-l C-r-u-i-s-e does not spell “unnamed”, sorry Marian.

Why is the (so called) official mailing list of Burning Man being used to promote For-Profit products and services of other companies?

And with regards to the media, specifically the Discovery Channel: how can a non-commerce event be shown on a network that pays for their airtime with commercials?

Friday, October 7, 2005

On Sunday after the burn, 2005, Larry Harvey and John Barlow gave a talk at Otter Oasis Camp.

Stickmon, who camped at Otter Oasis and knew about the Discovery Channel/New York Times deal with BM-LLC for an undisclosed fee had some concerns. During the “Q&A” portion of the talk, Stickmon asked Larry Harvey this: “How can the organizers who believe that Burning Man is not for sale justify charging a large fee to both Discovery Channel and the New York Times for documenting the festival?”

Harvey’s response: “What’s wrong with making some money off of them?”

This response was followed with a smattering of laughter by Harvey and the audience.

As a burners the question must be put: is Larry’s response acceptable to you, in light of what you understand about Burning Man? The fee and the resulting advertising revenue generated from this program to be the gross antithesis of the “10 Principles” as set by BMorg, particularly principle #3 “Decommodification” which states: “our community seeks to create social environments that are unmediated by commercial sponsorships, transactions, or advertising.”

Members of the Black Rock City Community Collective will be at San Francisco Decompression this Sunday, October 9th. We have invited the BM-LLC to speak to the Community regarding this issue and we are still awaiting a response. We hope that BM-LLC will agree to this discussion, because we believe in Principle #9 that “Immediate experience is, in many ways, the most important touchstone of value in our culture.”

On Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Andie Grace has agreed to allow us to hand deliver (under the stipulation as per our offer that we wear pretty fluffy tutus) all of your petitions. At this time, the Collective asks that you please express yourself either against or in favor of the Discovery Channel and we will personally hand them over to BMorg (in pretty fluffy tutus) and make sure that your voice is heard.

On Sun, September 25, 2005 – 8:40 PM

Andie Grace, the Communications Manager for BMorg, in response to a thread on submitted the following post:

I do apologize for being so blunt, but all this feels just a bit like moving in next to the airport and then complaining about the noise. Cameras have never been *banned* at Burning Man, and we’ve allowed the media for years – much of it higher-end, higher-visibilty, and frankly more commercially-oriented than this. TIME magazine and the Chronicle sell adspace, you know?

We welcome the media and appreciate their efforts to tell the story of our unique corner of modern culture. We do expect them to work with us and comport themselves in a manner that respects the tenets and aspects of our community, but we have allowed this type of coverage for years and will continue to do so.

If Burning Man is a private party where only the “cool” kids are allowed to see and understand it, then, um, whatever – enjoy, and I’ll be somewhere else. See, I’m not interested in working as hard as I do just to facilitate a secret party for the hip cognoscenti. What we do out there, what we all know is possible, is the type of thing that can change the world. It definitely changed mine. I *do* and have always actively hoped to share that story with the world, as long as – and here’s the big nail that it all hangs on – the media get it RIGHT. Helping them to do so is my job, and I feel I have done it well over the years, as have the amazing team of people who I am so lucky to work with.

“The BORG has EVERY right to keep every single camera out of the event, if they wish to do so. of course, they don’t wish this anymore, as is now clear to me. “

We never, ever said we wanted to keep all cameras out, so I don’t know what the “anymore” is referencing.

My email is bouncing because of the “petition” emails (and, I hasten to add, as the target of this petition I have no way to verify if it’s the same person submitting an email over and over, so it’s really hard to call an email petition a “signed document”.) Plus, it’s a bit hard not to take it all with a grain of salt since half the people filling out the form seem to be of the mind that Discovery is the first time we’ve allowed cameras at the event. Intelligent discourse I will listen to, but it would be nice if everyone reading the webpage and making up their own minds would at least take the time to get their facts straight before trotting out their indignation and barraging my inbox, keeping me from being able to do my job effectively. :\”

On Sun, September 25, 2005 – 11:28 PM

Chai Guy responded to Andie Grace’s response:


We are not trying to disrupt your work. If you would like to set up another inbox at for the specific purpose

of receiving these complaint emails we would be more than happy to change the web page to reflect that. We ask only for your word that you, or someone with authority inside the organization take the time to read and respond to

each email (or to post a response publicly on or in email form which will post on the in it’s entirety without editing).

Each petition that is forwarded to you has the person’s email address included in the petition. If there is a way of making these complaints more legitimate to you, please let us know and we may consider using that method.

The issue isn’t about making this a private party for the “cool” kids. This is an issue about the commodification of our event and selling that which does not belong to you. This issue is about a camera crew that showed little

respect for the event’s participants or art. This issue is about a one hour reality tv program.

If you want to contact a representative of the Black Rock City Community please do so at or

Update – Tuesday, September 27, 2005:

We have really good news: Andie Grace has agreed to allow us to hand deliver (under the stipulation as per our offer that we wear pretty fluffy tutus) all of your petitions. At this time, the Collective asks that you please express yourself either against or in favor of the Discovery Channel and we will personally hand them over to BMorg (in pretty fluffy tutus) and make sure that your voice is heard. Keep those petitions, cards and letters coming while we go to a dance supply store. Or…does anybody got a coupla tutus we can borrow?

Update – Monday, September 26, 2005:

We were informed that the petition had crashed the mail box of Andie Grace, the Manager of Communications. At the time we were notified, only 49 petitions had been sent. We have since stopped forwarding this petition to her. Instead, we are holding onto all petitions until BMorg responds to us with an address of where they would like them. We have asked for their word that they will read every comment made on the petition.

Regarding CHARLES LeDUFF December 17, 2003, 3:08 p.m.

Another Jayson Blair?

More of the same at the “Paper of Record.”

By Michelle Malkin

Looks like the New York Times has another ugly Jayson Blair-like scandal on its hands. This time, the young minority reporter is Charlie LeDuff, a part Native-American, part-Cajun writer, known as a rising star and favorite pet of former executive editor Howell Raines.

The hotshot LeDuff is now in hot water over his cribbing of anecdotes from someone else’s book about kayaking down the Los Angeles River for his own Page One fluff story about — you guessed it! — kayaking down the Los Angeles River. An embarrassing correction published in the New York Times on Dec. 8 explained:

An article last Monday about the Los Angeles River recounted its history and described the reporter’s trip downriver in a kayak. In research for the article, the reporter consulted a 1999 book by Blake Gumprecht, “The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth.” Several passages relating facts and lore about the river distilled passages from the book. Although the facts in those passages were confirmed independently-through other sources or the reporter’s first hand observation-the article should have acknowledged the significant contribution of Mr. Gumprecht’s research.

Gumprecht, an assistant professor of geography at the University of New Hampshire and a former newspaper reporter, told Slate’s Jack Shafer he was “fairly shocked” by the similarities between his book and the Times’s story, and that LeDuff’s borrowing went beyond accepted journalistic practices.

Perhaps not coincidentally, LeDuff was a good pal of the disgraced Jayson Blair. According to New York Metro:

One of Blair’s closest friends was Charlie LeDuff, a rising star in Raines’s firmament known for his colorful writing style. “Jayson would sort of tag along” with him, said a friend of LeDuff’s. “He was very competitive with Charlie, and then kind of took it many, many steps too far-because he could get away with it.”

Like Blair, LeDuff climbed the Times’s ladder swiftly thanks to the media diversity machine. The 36-year-old scribe went straight from journalism school to a minority internship at the Times to full-time reporter in 1995. As LeDuff explained in a 2001 interview with

[The New York Times was] my first newspaper job. I was an intern for three months at the Alaska Fisherman’s Journal. That was my first publication-type job. But the first thing I ever wrote that got published, my Russian friend in the Northeast got killed with alcohol. I just sort of wrote an obituary. The new class of Russian youth, after the fall of the wall, on the street corners selling pins and posters, running from the law. And I wrote that and I think I wrote it pretty well. I felt good and I felt like, hey I’m smart enough. I can do this.

The New York Post’s Keith Kelly says there’s no word on whether LeDuff will be punished for his not-so-bright transgression. But the Times has been willing to overlook LeDuff’s journalistic shortcuts before. In September, author and columnist Marvin Olasky reported that LeDuff attributed fake quotes to a naval officer in San Diego to fit the reporter’s antiwar agenda.

Lieutenant Commander Beidler, 32, on his way to Iraq in January, was walking with his family toward the end of Naval Station Pier 2 when the Times’s Charlie LeDuff asked him for his general view of war protesters. Mr. Beidler recalls stating, “Protesters have a right to protest, and our job is to defend those rights. But in protesting, they shouldn’t protest blindly; instead, they should provide reasonable solutions to the problem.” The LeDuff version had Mr. Beidler criticizing Los Angeles protesters but turning his guns at a complacent United States: “It’s war, Commander Beidler said, and the nation is fat. ‘No one is screaming for battery-powered cars,’ he added.” The journalist then turned to Commander Beidler wife’s Christal: “‘I’m just numb,’ she said as she patted down his collar. ‘I’ll cry myself to sleep, I’m sure.'”

Mr. Beidler was at sea when he discovered how far at sea the Times’s reporting was, but he sent off a letter to the editor stating what he had said and arguing that the quotes about national fatness and battery-powered cars “were completely fabricated by Mr. LeDuff in order to connect our nation’s dependence on oil with the current military buildup in the Middle East.”

Mr. Beidler also stated, “Mr. LeDuff continued his shameful behavior by attributing words and actions to my wife that were not her own. Not only did she not say she would cry herself to sleep, but she didn’t pat down my collar either, which was impossible for her to accomplish with my civilian shirt hidden under my jacket and a duffle bag hanging on my shoulder closest to her.”

In response, a Times editor shrugged off Beidler’s complaint. LeDuff, he informed Beidler, “thinks that he accurately represented his interview with you and your wife, and therefore so do I. If you have another encounter some day with The New York Times, I hope its outcome is more satisfactory to you.”

Institutional arrogance. Diversity monomania. Intellectual thievery. Wasn’t this all supposed to end with the fall of Raines? How many other victims of LeDuff’s “colorful writing” are out there? And how many other Jayson Blairs remain nestled in the Gray Lady’s bosom?

Stay tuned.

Michelle Malkin is a syndicated columnist and author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists Criminals & Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. For more on the Charles LeDuff see TimesWatch.


Do it like they do on the ‘Discovery Channel’…

Post by Adonis252 » Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:34 am

I am just wondering if anyone else was interviewed by a camera crew from the television station, ‘Discovery Channel’. Myself and three others were interviewed at our oasis for “Hot people who need to be cooled down’, on tuesday if I don’t remember correctly. If you know anything about this I would love to know when it will be aired or how I could get a copy of the episode.

I think I did sign a release form….oooops….It seemed like a good idea at the time….Hi mom…


Post by robotland » Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:08 am

The Discovery Times channel guys were taping for the program “Only in America”…but were met with great resistance on several fronts, and I wonder if the piece will be aired.


Post by Chai Guy » Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:54 am

I’ve heard from sources inside the LLC that the footage has been edited and shown to the organization. I’m unaware if the footage has been approved yet (The LLC must approve the final cut before it is aired).

Action Girl has promised to allow an opportunity to view the footage before it airs, as well as the opportunity to hand deliver several hundred letters (and counting) of BRC citizens who wish to voice their dissent over allowing a reality television show to be filmed at the event.

Chai Guy

Post by DaBomb » Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:16 pm

Chai Guy wrote:

I’ve heard from sources inside the LLC that the footage has been edited and shown to the organization. I’m unaware if the footage has been approved yet (The LLC must approve the final cut before it is aired).

They must have approved the footage because an air-date has been set.

Chai Guy wrote:

Action Girl has promised to allow an opportunity to view the footage before it airs, as well as the opportunity to hand deliver several hundred letters (and counting) of BRC citizens who wish to voice their dissent over allowing a reality television show to be filmed at the event.

Apparently, they reneged on this deal because it has been screened, approved, and like I said, an airdate has been set. Whatever happened to the BM credo welcoming community participation and in-put? Perhaps not when there is a voice of dissent.

Love & Rockets


Post by ravenluv » Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:32 pm

does anyone know the air date?


Post by Eric » Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:49 pm

ravenluv wrote:

does anyone know the air date?

From the Discovery Channel website:

TLC :: Episode :: Burning Man

… FEB 02 2006 @ 11:00 PM. FEB 03 2006 @ 04:00 AM. FEB 03 2006 @ 07:00 AM. FEB 03 2006 @ 12:00 PM. FEB 03 2006 @ 03:00 PM. DTC — Only in America. Burning Man. …

I believe it’s on “The Learning Channel” (hence the clever “TLC” in the quote above), not Discovery proper.

Eric ShutterSlut

BRC Weekly

Post by theCryptofishist » Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:10 am

Conspiracy theory I: they waited to do the approval until Action Grl was on the road this month.


Post by actiongrl » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:57 pm

I remember saying you guys could deliver the petitions in your tutus, but I do not remember saying you’d be invited to the pre-screening. If I did, I’m sorry, but I think it was a misunderstanding, because I can’t think of a reason why it would be plausible to invite anyone.

It is important to understand that aside from certain things pertaining to the survival of the event, we don’t exercise “creative control” over anyone’s piece, and as long as it isn’t potentially damaging nor in violation of our Basic Use Agreements, we can’t force anyone to edit their piece anyway.

The piece was shown to us just before I left on my trip, and we had a great dialogue about it. Overall the piece is quite funny I think, and should be airing soon on Discovery Times.


Post by Chai Guy » Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:33 pm

actiongrl wrote:

I remember saying you guys could deliver the petitions in your tutus, but I do not remember saying you’d be invited to the pre-screening.

From 3playa:

actiongrl – Sep 27 2005, 11:42AM

Chai, I’d love to have those in a printed format, but I can’t read unless materials are delivered in a real tutu. Not a Sears tutu, but a real one.

If we time it right maybe you can come in and get a sneak preview of the piece. I’d also be interested to show you “Strange Universe” (“THE SECRET RITES OF BURNING MAN!”) from 1996 and a few other pieces.

Chai Guy – Sep 27 2005, 11:47AM

I was feeling part of the scenery

Andie, sounds good. I shall hand deliver them in a real tutu, and hopefully get a chance to preview the piece. I do want to deliver these objections prior to the LLC signing off on the project however.

Chai Guy

Post by actiongrl » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:41 pm

Gotcha. I see what I said. I wasn’t thinking of the screening where they sought approval, but rather just showing you a copy of it sometime after they submitted it. Usually they just mail us a copy, but this time they brought it over and took it away with them again, so I don’t have anything to show you, though eventually they will be sending us one when it’s completely finished – what we saw was the first cut.

“Maybe you can come and get a sneak preview” is different from “You can come to the screening with the producers.” That process is already pretty delicate given that we don’t have “creative control” but rather control over holding folks to the terms of the contract – eg., not showing illegal acts or nudity without written permission, or making outright incorrect statements about numbers and statistics, etc. Sometimes even our own employees don’t understand that difference and think that we can make someone take something out just because it’s inane or what have you, but really, nobody has that kind of control. So, it can be a delicate process to manage people’s expectations about how much their opinions can affect a finished piece…

At any rate, I think the piece turned out to be pretty funny, and our only few concerns were addressed cooperatively. David, the producer, is a really good guy.


Postby Chai Guy » Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:24 pm


The thing is, we felt the Discovery Times Channel filming at Burning Man was wrong. We invited you and the LLC to respond in a public forum at the event and you (and Maid Marian, and Larry Harvey) graciously declined. Fine.

Then we started a petition drive, we sent you 40 email petitions and you claimed it crashed your server and that you couldn’t get any work done. There was even an insinuation that it was some kind of denial of service attack (who knew 40 text only emails would crash a server?) We apologized and asked you what the appropriate channels were for our discourse. After some discussion you agreed to allow us to deliver the petitions in our tutus. You even stated that we might have an opportunity to view some footage (It’s not really worth me getting into the semantics of what that footage was or who might be there, I really don’t care about that). All we asked for is the opportunity to deliver the petitions BEFORE the LLC signed off on the footage, in the manner that you chose. That opportunity has been denied.

Frankly, I thought we were trying to work together on this, and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. All we’ve ever wanted was to give people on both sides of this issue a voice.

I don’t feel like you’ve kept your end of the bargain here, and it has nothing to do with not being able to view the footage, I want to make that very clear.

Chai Guy

Postby actiongrl » Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:02 pm

“it crashed your server”

It crashed my email program. Happens to me a lot on high volume days, because I have too much email. Nothing malicious, although it did put me in a pretty crappy mood that day.

If there was some insinuation that there was every any question we were going to deny them the right to broadcast the footage based on anything that could have been said in your petitions, I’m sorry for that misunderstanding. Having allowed them to shoot, the chances of our denying them permission to broadcast would have been EXTREMELY slim. The piece would have had to violate the agreement we had made with them, and it didn’t. I’m sorry this has blossomed into a misunderstanding between us, but what I agreed to do was accept the petitions in written form. I didn’t think I was going to have to contact your group to ask that you bring them to me – I figured that since you were motivated to get this information to us, you might proactively contact me about it.

I also offered to show you the piece (I did *not* extend an offer to participate in the approval process) and some others from the archive, to deepen our conversation about the approval process and give you more understanding of our legal rights in the situation. If I gave the impression that the Discovery Times piece would be affected in any way by the delivery of these petitions, I’m sorry, but that’s not what I was trying to say. My endeavor was to include you in more information about our Media Process and give you a chance to deliver the feedback in a way that worked on both sides, but I never meant to give the impression that Burning Man was necessarily going to change its longstanding policies on media or back out of letting “Only In America” broadcast because of it.


Post by capjbadger » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:06 pm

Whether or not our input was going to change if Discovery Channel was going to broadcast the piece is not the issue here. The fact that the ORG agreed to this in the first place is.

As a new burner, I’ve read though all the info I could get my hands on and thought I had a pretty good grasp of what BM was suppose to be and the spirit by which it was run.

Seems I have been lied to.

Might as well put a pair of mouse ears on Larry and call it a day… 🙁


Postby actiongrl » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:24 pm

I’m not prepared to make this yet another thread where I defend our allowing the media into the event as we have done for ten years. I’ve had the conversations face to face, on email, and on three different bulletin boards for months now, and while I appreciate that there are some who disagree, I am going to have to admit that I don’t think the response to has been so overwhelming as to say that Burning Man really needs to make significant changes to what has been a successfully applied media policy for most of its existence.

I have also spoken with hundreds of people who heard about Burning Man for the first time through the popular media and had a fantastic and transformative time there. The media are part of our experience at the event and working with them is my job, and I did it. If you want to know more about why we allow press at Burning Man, come over to Media Mecca like Chai and Da Bomb did and talk with us about it. Read the Afterburn report where we acknowledge the Discovery Times controversy and explain why we handled it the way we did. (That’s due out in the coming months, I just turned in my report.)

I’m basically saying I’m over it with the rehashing and the BBS discussion thereof, though. Frankly, I am increasingly disappointed in how human beings will speak so coarsely to one another online, and I’m really losing my taste for encouraging people to use these mediums when we address newcomers by calling them names… Would any one walk up to me and make that mouse ears comment in person? I doubt it, and if you did, I’d have every right to be indignant about it, and I would. When I have talked about this in person, I’ve found that many people who expressed outrage about the Discovery Times piece really didn’t understand much about our media process or how much media exposure we get. With a little more information, they generally understood our decision…maybe not all supported it, but they at least could understand why we work with the media like we do.

I think I’ve tried to address that with you guys several times, Chai.

My phone number is going to be sent to you via PM. Using our voices is really the only way i’m willing to discuss this further, because the fact is I’ve already said my piece online over and again, and I remain of my same opinion.

We’ve had successful conversations in real life, and I’m willing to hear you out and tell you anything you need to know too. If you feel the world needs to know the outcomes of our conversation, you can tell them about it, but I am not interested in participating in this forum about it.


Post by capjbadger » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:41 pm

Kinetic IV wrote:

capjbadger wrote:

Might as well put a pair of mouse ears on Larry and call it a day… 🙁

With regret, don’t forget a second pair for AG in this case.

My quip was not so much pointing blame at any one person, but simply using him to made a point.

I’ve seen too many other place/events go down this road. Places I called home. I don’t want to see this go the same way.

Now… Where do I sign up? 👿

I’m not going to stand by and let this die too.


Postby Kinetic IV » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:58 pm

AG, are you really understanding what Chai’s trying to get across to you? I don’t think you are and that saddens me because for the longest time I felt you were one person inside the org that still understood the concerns of the participants. Now I don’t think that’s the case anymore. So Chai only presented 40 names on the petition…hmmm…after reading that comment I felt like damn, unless we have the big bucks like Discovery did to wave in your faces our concerns are not going to be heard…or even stand a chance of getting higher up into the ORG where someone might decide to act on it.

As for the mouse ears comment many people only know me online and few truly know me offline. If I met you in person and felt something was wrong I would look you right square in the eye and say so. It might not be pleasant but it would be done. I did put the “with regret” comment in there because I highly respect you…and I hated saying anything at all. But the event is very important to me, I understand the need for some media attention but months later I still feel this was the wrong thing to do.

I’ll shut up now, my voice really means nothing. But at least until now I had the slight illusion that it might.

Kinetic IV

Postby actiongrl » Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:03 pm

Everything anyone has said has made its way to the top on this one, trust me on that. I’m just telling you that allowing the media has been our policy for a great number of reasons that apply to our experience as the people who organize this event, and that I feel like we did the right thing by our stated policies, and that while we are very very cautious and aware of the rights of our participants and seek to protect the event we all love by working closely with the media, the mere fact of their presence at the event is really not open to debate.


Postby capjbadger » Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:18 pm

actiongrl wrote:

Everything anyone has said has made its way to the top on this one, trust me on that. I’m just telling you that allowing the media has been our policy for a great number of reasons that apply to our experience as the people who organize this event, and that I feel like we did the right thing by our stated policies, and that while we are very very cautious and aware of the rights of our participants and seek to protect the event we all love by working closely with the media, the mere fact of their presence at the event is really not open to debate.


In order to preserve the spirit of gifting, our community seeks to create social environments that are unmediated by commercial sponsorships, transactions, or advertising. We stand ready to protect our culture from such exploitation. We resist the substitution of consumption for participatory experience.”

This isn’t about the media being there, it’s about them buying the rights to other people’s art and selling that on national TV for their own profit. You sold us out, plain and simple.

Just wondering… What’s the taxes on 30 pieces of silver come out to anyway?


Post by robotland » Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:47 am

Having met AG and Larry, I can tell you FOR CERTAIN that she does NOT possess devil horns…Mr. Harvey wouldn’t remove his hat, of course.

I think Andie has been very diplomatic, and does NOT deserve to be likened to Judas, or worse, Mickey Mouse. Had it not been for the media, I wouldn’t have had a clue about this fantastic event that has enormously enriched my existence, facilitated the meeting of many wonderful people and reinvigorated my artistic career. I can understand how difficult it might be to perceive Burning Man as a perfect, incorruptable experience while at the same time accepting profit-driven camera crews let loose to record it…But all of our existence as human beings involves making such tradeoffs. If I had worked as hard as the BMorg to produce this amazing, unique experience, I’d be flattered by almost any media attention- Girls Gone Wild creeps and amateur pornographers notwithstanding. Conversely, if you wanted to start your own event, and do all the hard work, and then deny the media any access whatsoever, then all power to you. Until recently, I wondered if the Discovery Times program would even be aired- A lot of people seemed to be taken aback by the idea, and I can’t say that I blame them. But I have faith that the Powers That Be have and will continue to defend our privacy and our rights as Participants. I’ll be curious to see the program, and won’t make further conclusions until I have.


Postby capjbadger » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:38 pm

I’ll say it again since it seems people are not understanding. The quips I’ve been making have been at the ORG as a whole, not at any one person. I’m sure AG and Larry are wonderful people and I have no beef with them personally.

(*Chuckle* Goes to show our mindset when getting compared to Mickey Mouse is worse that being a Judas.. 😉 )

That having been said, seems I need to say this again since you are not getting the gist of all this.

The media being there in the first place is NOT the problem.

Read that line again so it sinks in…

The ORG SELLING the rights to other people’s art for profit is the issue here. The ORG exploited other people’s work and sold it to DC which is directly against the principles that BM is suppose to run on.

If they want to sell, fine. But at least be up front about it instead of hiding behind the lie that BM is somehow without commerce.

“…unmediated by commercial sponsorships, transactions, or advertising.”

If the media wants in, cool. They get in just like every one else, and act as part of the community and participates, not sitting around being spectators.

Robot, you heard about the event via the media. Cool. I heard about it via social circles. Cool also. (granted I have the advantage of living in the SF bay area). Neither is wrong. I simply have a very hard time putting the actions of the ORG together with “Decommodification” and not seeing the hypocrisy.


Postby Kinetic IV » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:49 pm

You might as well be talking to one of these. The ORG is going to do what the ORG wants to do and the participants can take a hike. As long as InHouse funnels those ticket sales simoleons into the treasury and the clique gets their center cafe sales, the ice sales, Lanceland gets to keep up their blatant advertising, volunteers show up for petty crap like taking down holiday decorations, etc, nothing’s going to change.

So why go at all? There’s still good people there that are not part of the corruption and they make it worth the time invested to go. And yes I said the C word. It’s corrupt. It’s starting to stink of wretched excess and people are waking up and noticing the stench.

Kinetic IV

Post by lazarus » Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:13 pm

actiongrl wrote:

I’m not prepared to make this yet another thread where I defend our allowing the media into the event as we have done for ten years. I’ve had the conversations face to face, on email, and on three different bulletin boards for months now, and while I appreciate that there are some who disagree, I am going to have to admit that I don’t think the response to has been so overwhelming as to say that Burning Man really needs to make significant changes to what has been a successfully applied media policy for most of its existence.

I have also spoken with hundreds of people who heard about Burning Man for the first time through the popular media and had a fantastic and transformative time there. The media are part of our experience at the event and working with them is my job, and I did it. If you want to know more about why we allow press at Burning Man, come over to Media Mecca like Chai and Da Bomb did and talk with us about it. Read the Afterburn report where we acknowledge the Discovery Times controversy and explain why we handled it the way we did. (That’s due out in the coming months, I just turned in my report.)

I’m basically saying I’m over it with the rehashing and the BBS discussion thereof, though. Frankly, I am increasingly disappointed in how human beings will speak so coarsely to one another online, and I’m really losing my taste for encouraging people to use these mediums when we address newcomers by calling them names… Would any one walk up to me and make that mouse ears comment in person? I doubt it, and if you did, I’d have every right to be indignant about it, and I would. When I have talked about this in person, I’ve found that many people who expressed outrage about the Discovery Times piece really didn’t understand much about our media process or how much media exposure we get. With a little more information, they generally understood our decision…maybe not all supported it, but they at least could understand why we work with the media like we do.

I think I’ve tried to address that with you guys several times, Chai.

My phone number is going to be sent to you via PM. Using our voices is really the only way i’m willing to discuss this further, because the fact is I’ve already said my piece online over and again, and I remain of my same opinion.

We’ve had successful conversations in real life, and I’m willing to hear you out and tell you anything you need to know too. If you feel the world needs to know the outcomes of our conversation, you can tell them about it, but I am not interested in participating in this forum about it.”

Then why don’t we stop beating around the proverbial bush and call BM what it really is. A business. And as a business, the bottom line or profit is the driving force or motive. It is a LLC, which means for profit with the protection to the individual corporate shareholders from most liablility lawsuits. Businesses, in order to survive, advertise. Hence the presence of non-journalistic media such as the DIscovery Times people. Org sells them the rights to gain additional profit. The problem comes the Org claims that it is not a business. That it is protecting your art by preventing unwanted use. But yet they sell those rights. Time for a fresh look at profit vs non-profit. Just my opinion.


Post by actiongrl » Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:38 pm

I don’t consider a channel between Discovery Network and the New York Times “non-journalistic”. Most every legitimate news outlet I know of accepts advertising. It’s how the news gets told.


Post by capjbadger » Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:46 pm

I’ll have to agree with AG on this one. The news is paid for by ads. plain and simple. If anything, I’d say Discovery is more “journalistic” with their documentries than your typical news outlet (ABC, NBC, CBS, Etc.) with their hype and shock value news “services”.


Post by HughMungus » Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:12 pm

Burning Man is a private event to which you are invited. If you don’t like the paramaters, don’t go. If you have a problem with something, send an email and maybe even verify that it was received but then LET IT GO. I think BORG does listen to complaints and suggestions but it’s not a democracy. I don’t think it can be. Realizing this will relieve some of you of a lot of stress. It used to bug the hell out of me that they hand out out a ton of MOOP at the gate, that a lot of stupid “art” gets funded, and that “the man” gets bigger and more complex each year (money I think could be spent better elsewhere). But I’m not going to spend a lot of time bitching about it. I’ll post on here or send an email to whoever and then I just let it go because I know I’m a guest.

It’s what you make it.


Post by lazarus » Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:13 pm

I disagree. NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, FOX etc. Television news. Journalists. New York Times, Denver Post, Los Angeles Times, etc. Print journalists. All others are pseudo journalists, hype mongers, paid for advertising for BM. But let’s get back to the point that BM is a business. A business that uses volunteers to increase the profit for the Org. You call it an Org, but it is a business that makes a profit. You want the illusion that it is an ephemeral event, which it is, however it is still a business. Change it to a 501c3 and it becomes a non-profit. Keep in mind I don’t mind buying a ticket, attending the event and having fun but when the Org claims a “halo about ones head” they should reflect same in their actions and words.