Our Member, Frubbish to give ABC TV News Interview on E-Cigs Tomorrow - Let’s Wish Frubbish Luck!!

[TheBandit]

I agree with Bizzy that the live report was much different than the written article. Not obviously, but kind of subtly. Such as leading and closing with negatives, contradicting the positives with negatives and not vice versa, and just a general undertone. I mean, they aired it for their "Health Alert" segment, and immediately associated e-cigs to buying valium and xanax online from other countries.

Yes, Bizzy, please load up whatever you can so that everyone here is discussing the same material.

One thing that I would like to point out, though, is that this is nothing more than the same old stuff that has been being put out over the last few weeks. And, whether they like it or not, I believe that they are actually doing us a favor. Any SMOKER that sees this is going to think....hmm, electronic cigarettes, I wonder what that is all about. Hopefully, they google electronic cigarette, and end up on this forum where they can become more informed about them, absorb the info, and make up their own minds.

 

[bizzyb0t]

Here's a teaser clip... which was more of a test to see how it'd come out...

e-cig sweep (test)

i'm uploading the other clip but it's going to be a while before it's uploaded and converted, the file is 275mb.

 

[strayling]

So, the journo behaved like a journo. What a surprise. Sometimes I hate it when my expectations are fulfilled, but there's always the chance that the horse will learn to sing so I try to stay positive.

The danger now is that people will become *too* suspicious of reporters and we get into a nasty feedback loop of mistrust. Reporters are not our friends and we shouldn't expect them to be on our side, but they don't have to be our enemies.

 

[bizzyb0t]

Here's the full clip... it's going to be a few minutes until it's converted to flash.


Link to vid: e-cig news clip I'm in


Please don't laugh at me, lol... Apparently my atomizer was flooded and was producing wimpy vapor, lol.

 

[smokingclam]

That wasn't really all that bad. It showed both sides of the story in my opinion. Alot better then the one CBS aired.

 

[chokmah]

I cant get it to play although I am not really great at using computers to begin with..

 

[LaceyUnderall]

YOU GUYS DID GREAT!

The news report really wasn't that bad and Jaclyn did do an ok job. I am a little concerned she kept referring to it as "illegal" because well, show me a law that says they are. Considering even us forum members are up in arms about the "form" letter and what it really means, I can see how she might come to the conclusion they are illegal, even though I think that conclusion is wrongful propaganda.

Either way: Props to Frubbish and Bizzy... You looked very handsome and held yourselves very well

 

[bizzyb0t]

Chokmah, wait a few minutes and try again, the Flash version will ready shortly, the "original file" is a Quicktime format .MP4, btw.

I felt it was hyping the "fear" and "illegal" aspects of e-cigs, just a bit too much... the previous segment was talking about dangerous and illegal drugs online.

And thank you Lacey I just wish I didn't look like a big dork and puffing weak vape

Honestly, they took the worst clips of the vape! I blew much thicker clouds than that!

I hate being on front of the camera, so this was very uncomfortable for me...

Flash is done: http://blip.tv/file/1904044?filename=Bizzyb0t-ecigNewsClipImIn166.flv

 

[BadSeed]

I don't see a problem with that. That was a pretty fair report. Definitely one of the better ones.

 

[Kate]

Frubbish and Bizzy, you were great ... really. Thanks for doing that.

I thought it looked a bit like an advert for us with the voice over trying to present all sides. Smokers will see that and think that vapour looks good I think. Not everyone cares what the FDA or Cancer Society people say so don't worry about that.

Just to temper this a little with an idea. We really should only want to present facts to the public, good and bad so that people can make informed decisions.

Your vapour looked better than smoke

 

[ejfan1977]

I thought it was pretty good. You guys did great! That report was way better than the CBS Early show report. I think she did a pretty good job.

 

[taukimada]

Frub.. Bizz.. thank you for stepping up... you guys did good..

as to the "slant".. i can see where that could be made out of the piece.. but i don't think it was done purposely.. sad to say.. as i posted earlier.. it boils down to us vapes being on the bad end of a 10-1 argument.. and in that way.. until we become more mainstreams it's always going to end up 10 shots to our 1.. just the numbers we are going to have to deal with for the time being...

overall i thought the piece was as fair "as it could be" and anyone who's looking could easily see the anti's in the diner were ignorant.. sadly most won't see it that way.. again.. 10-1..

and now at least having seen the story.. arguments can be better aranged.. the flames were getting a little too warm in here with nobody KNOWING what they were talking about storywise

again.. THANK YOU Frub and Bizz for putting your feet to the fire for the community TOP NOTCH in my book

 

[puff-puff-pass]

I think the comment of them "being illegal" is out of line.
The comment about them being seized at the border because they are made in China.....If that were really the case, could we have a supplier or two pipe up and let us know if her comment holds water.

And to the two new face of the e-cig world...
Bravo! Bravo! Well stated, and well presented!

 

[taukimada]

I think the comment of them "being illegal" is out of line.
The comment about them being seized at the border because they are made in China.....If that were really the case, could we have a supplier or two pipe up and let us know if her comment holds water.

And to the two new face of the e-cig world...
Bravo! Bravo! Well stated, and well presented!

i didn't like the "illegal" comment either.. but sadly that's the FDA stance.. and they were only repeating it..

seized shipments is a fact... i think it was way out of line to say it was BECAUSE it's from China.. and i would like to think that was a misstatement needing clarification.. that statement would make much more sense if they were stating it as confiscations are only being done because it's stopped as an import.. i think specifying china was the mistake...

i'm being slightly distracted here at the house atm.. so i may not have made my point properly.. but i hope you get the gist

 

[bizzyb0t]

Thanks guys

I just wished she mentioned the fact that there had been a study done showing that "propylene glycol" was safe. And that it'd be hard to argue that e-cigs are as dangerous as "analogs", sort of what that clip from the Cancer Society seemed to imply.

 

[strayling]

That report wasn't so bad. We can pick holes in the details but the overall tone wasn't actively hostile so I'm not complaining.

I also now understand the weird quote about stopping shipments "because they're from China" - I think the idea was to emphasise that the reason customs agents are able to stop shipments is that the kit is made overseas; it was clumsily phrased and came across as a slam on China when written down instead of spoken.

LOL @ the spokesbimbo saying that the only safe cigarette is the one you don't smoke: these things aren't cigarettes and you don't smoke them, o clueless one.

 

[wv2win]

are we REALLY going to argue about the "full" story before we've even seen it??

from what i read in the online article.. it didn't sound to me as if she was "leaning" any direction... i believe we have these arguments on a regular basis on here about tone and inflection unobservable in text...

most of the negatives in the article are statements made by OTHERS.. not Jaclyn or however you spell her name..

exactly how do we expect it to lean more towards us when unfortunately the fact is.. within the population we are ALWAYS going to be the short end of a 10-1 argument until VALID studies are done and PROOF POSITIVE is given to the opposition...

that said.. Kate... i'm actually surprised you haven't read the studies.. not that you NEED to mind you.. and it's not an attack of any sort.. you have that right to ignore what you feel isn't pertinent to YOU.. was just mentioning as it's always seemed to me that you were normally a bit more up to speed on things of the reports nature.. reading unpublished reports are neither here nor there in the long run.. we need SOLID reports if we want to complain that people aren't heading them..

Disclaimer: this post was for clarification of point purposes ONLY.. anything felt to be offending probbly wasn't pointed at YOU and was not done purposely.. it's all good.. Sun.. i still enjoy reading your posts.. and Kate.. i still lubsya

Who has the control over the content of the story, what is given more importance, which point of view receives more time and attention????? Don't you get it????? It's like the reporter who asks the accused "Do you still beat your wife?" Either way he answers, he's damed.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

i didn't like the "illegal" comment either.. but sadly that's the FDA stance.. and they were only repeating it..

Is it really the FDA's stance? From what I can tell, certain shipments are being stopped because:

1. Claims that the devices within the package are for "quitting smoking". I have to agree with the FDA on stopping these packages.
2. Claims that the devices are medical devices like "lung apparatus". I have to agree with the FDA on stopping these packages.

I find it interesting that eLiquids are making it through left and right.

Frankly, we feel the FDA is doing exactly what they should be. They are staying within their limits and stopping those who are overstepping their bounds with improper marketing and labeling. Now, is it possible once you make their list of people to watch for, you will have trouble every time? Sure. But they cannot over step the laws that are in place and currently, there are no laws that state you cannot ship vaporizers into this country. What I also find interesting is that when you type "nicotine" into the FDA website you get this: Tobacco Redirect Information And a further interesting note is they do not mention electronic cigarettes on their website, accept for those shipments that were stopped and those that were stopped, violated points 1 and 2 above.

If someone can show me a link that states the FDA has control over nicotine, then well, I would love to see it because I have hunted high and low and just cannot find one... anywhere.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

And that it'd be hard to argue that e-cigs are as dangerous as "analogs", sort of what that clip from the Cancer Society seemed to imply.

Thank god rational adults know that abstinence doesn't work! Even Bristol Palin was balsy enough to state that one for us again. LOL.

 

[Frubbish]

I am actually pretty pleased with the report. Whether it is positive or not, it definitely got attention. I have had NINE people text, email, call or facebook message me since the program aired asking for more info on ecigs.