Slate article on Unsolved Mysteries

[Kane]

http://www.slate.com/id/2153914

Has anyone seen this article about Unsolved Mysteries. It's posted at slate.com. Torie Bosch, the author of the article, talks about the show in general. It's worth a look.

[wiseguy182]

Well, as Gorilla Monsoon (who with Bobby Heenan, made up the best announcing team in pro wrestling history, IMO) used to say, "Talk about mountains of misinformation." I'm not familiar with Slate or Torie Bosch, but Torie misses the boat entirely on several things she writes.

-She refers to UM as a copycat imitator of America's Most Wanted. Yet, according to IMDb, UM debuted in 1987, and AMW debuted in 1988. Therefore, rendering it impossible for UM to be a copycat of AMW.

-She says AMW had a broader range of stories. Now, I'm not trying to knock AMW at all here, I think it's a very important show, but as far as I know, they focus on killings, wanted fugitives, that sort of thing. Again, not a bad thing to do, but UM had stories on missing persons, murders, robberies, fraud, ghosts, ufo's, treasures, lost loves, other supernatural occurences, strange legends, miracles, psychics, etc.

-She says the shack fire where the two boys were murdered occured in Arkansas. It occured in Arizona.

-I also have a problem with her referring to pleas for help as "tawdry and trashy and exploitive." Uh, no, they just might help save somebody's life, Torie!

This and other things equally ridiciulous lead me to say that Torie should do some more research the next time she submits an article.

[Composite Sketch]

I liked the article and I'm glad that people aside from us die-hards of the show are talking about it. Get the name out there; it can only help.

You beat me to it for the state correction in her mention of the Scott Johnson case, wiseguy.

As I see it, AMW and UM had two very different approaches. UM produced per show 3 to 5 very slick, structured segments that usually had the same time length. Also, not all of the segments were of fugitives. AMW's approach was to cram as many fugitives and suspects per show as possible, sometimes up to a dozen. In recent years we've seen their All Points Bulletin and now the 60 Seconds of Shame. So, of course AMW would have a higher number of captures, but it'd be interesting to see the percentage of captures as compared to the number of fugitives they've profiled.

She is incorrect in stating that UM was an AMW imitator. The only way that could be possible is toll-free number aspect. Anyone know when UM added the 1-800-876-5353 number to its shows? It wasn't there at the beginning. I think AMW had 1-800-CRIME-88 from its first show in January 1988 but feel free to let me know if that's not correct.

I also don't understand why she considers cases getting solved being a bad thing for UM. They didn't make these shows *just* to scare kids (and adults). They wanted to see murders solved and fugitives captured. DNA has solved a lot of old UM cases in recent years, and UM fans are nothing but happy about that.

Finally, yeah, UM would have done a great job with the Natalie Holloway case, but I thought UM was more about shedding light on those lesser-known unsolved cases, and not necessarily the ones that the media was/is obsessed over. That added to its charm.

[Kane]

I too noticed some of the misinformation on the article, especially on the shack fire. There are definitely a number of other things in the Slate article that don't sit well with me, such as the suggestion that the solving of cases is bad for the show. Duh! The show is about fnding solutions to unsolved cases.

I too have a problem with Torie's description of the show as "tawdry and trashy and exploitive." But AMW has had its share of similar criticism. It shows me just how uninformed (or dullwitted) TV critics can sometimes be.

Nevertheless, I agree with Torie Bosch on the consensus that UM would have done well in covering the disappearance of Natalie Hollaway.

[crystaldawn]

Well I agree AMW is a great show and does a real service to the public in all the fugitives its captured. I do also however thinks it focuses maybe too much on the violence of the crimes in the reenactments. I can't bear to watch most of the AMW segments for that reason whereas the UM ones hardly phase me. I know these terrible things happen and they can't ignore the facts but they could scale it down IMO. I think UM did a good job of that when it came to a horrible crime, like for instance, child molestation and child murder. They didn't show a reenactment of the crime, just two people walking off into the woods and I appreciated that about UM. I do think AMW's only focus is to capture fugitives which is of course good but UM also wanted to entertain as well as capture those on the run which is why they added UFO's, Ghosts and all the other different types of segments they chose to do. Just my two cents.

[Kane]

I do think AMW's only focus is to capture fugitives which is of course good but UM also wanted to entertain as well as capture those on the run which is why they added UFO's, Ghosts and all the other different types of segments they chose to do.

Well, catching fugitives isn't AMW's only focus. They are also devoted to finding missing persons.

[sunny605]

Just to clarify, the Slate article isn't saying UM is a copycat of AMW, but rather, vice versa:

Sadly, it was a copycat competitor, America's Most Wanted, that captured more felons and won the ratings war.

It was neat to see a recent article about the show. I thought the author made some good points about why the show might not still be around, but I think it could still be popular in prime-time today. Hey, we've got all of us to watch, right? :lol:

[wiseguy182]

Just to clarify, the Slate article isn't saying UM is a copycat of AMW, but rather, vice versa:



It was neat to see a recent article about the show. I thought the author made some good points about why the show might not still be around, but I think it could still be popular in prime-time today. Hey, we've got all of us to watch, right? :lol:

Oh, yep, you're right about that. I must have read it wrong, sorry about that.

I think if NBC had played their cards right, UM could still be a top show for them. Again, I'm not knocking AMW at all, but it's very unusual for a spin-off (if you can call it that) to do better than its predecessor.

The networks tend to irritate me, and NBC was no exception. They were notorious for not being able to schedule properly. I know the following might seem off-track, but it does relate: Consider this example- Newsradio, which I and a lot of other people believe, was one of the funniest sitcoms on the 1990's. It featured Phil Hartman, who was just coming off a tremendous eight year run on Saturday Night Live. It was a great show, but the networks decided that they didn't like it (like UM) and instead of settling it in one place, they bounced it around on the schedule like a ping-pong ball and intentionally made it so that it wouldn't attract an audience, and thus the show was annually on the brink of cancellation. One time slot that it never got was Thursday night, which was a ratings jackpot for NBC in the 1990's. What did get Thursday nights? Anyone remember Union Square, Fired Up or any of the other bevy of forgettable shows that did make it on Thursday nights? Then there were equally horrible shows like Jesse, Veronica's Closet and Suddenly Susan (with the highly overrated Kathy Griffin) which developed in to what is referred to as time slot hits because they were on Thursday nights. Once, NBC felt that they could survive without the cozy time slots, they were shipped off to Mondays where ratings quickly plummeted and the shows were quickly cancelled. NBC didn't care about what their viewers wanted, they only cared about what shows they could MAKE into hits. UM had done well in its middle of the week time slot for many years, but it was shipped off to Friday nights in 1994, where the network knew it would suffer as Friday has long been the night people watch the t.v. the least.

Blech, please excuse the rant, but if these networks would hire some people that actually listened to viewers and keep a set schedule, I and a lot of other people would be a lot happier:)

[Kane]

UM had done well in its middle of the week time slot for many years, but it was shipped off to Friday nights in 1994, where the network knew it would suffer as Friday has long been the night people watch the t.v. the least.

Admittedly, I was initially apprehensive about UM being moved to Fridays in 1994, because I worried that it would hurt the show's ratings. But even when NBC canceled it in 1997, the ratings were still respectable, and the network could have kept it for another year.

But I suspect there were ownership issues. Networks tend to be more invested in shows they can own, because such programs are generally more profitable and more cost-effective.

Blech, please excuse the rant, but if these networks would hire some people that actually listened to viewers and keep a set schedule, I and a lot of other people would be a lot happier:)

That reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons, where Homer's meets his half-brother Herb. As business discussions were being made about automobiles, it becomes clear to Herb that the auto business is out of touch with consumers. So he criticizes his collegause, saying something to the effect of: "Instead of listening to what people want, you're telling them what they want!"

The same can be said about today's primetime executives. I stick by my contention that they are out of touch with us. They have convinced me of that by airing programs they can shove down your throat. And when they air shows that don't sit well with you, there really is nothing you can do about it...except turn it off.

[compulsive dvd]

AMW hardly won a ratings war. Unsolved Mysteries occupied the top spot in the Nielsen ratings many times during its prime, but AMW, being on Fox, never brought in the same numbers. We should remember that it was cancelled several years ago, but brought back due to demands by pretty much everyone. From what I can see, its ratings still aren't that good, despite having led to the capture of 911 fugitives. It's unfortunate that ratings matter because I do not believe that any of them are accurate. Watching AMW seems like a no brainer. Everyone should do it and do their part to help get criminals off the street. I don't know how there isn't an entire channel devoted to help catch criminals and find missing children. Regardless, I am unsure how someone could write that UM was trashy or low budget. I'm sorry, but those segments still creep me out most of the time. You can hear the EPs talk about the big budget the show had during its initial primetime run on the dvds.

[nohwheregirl]

I agree with most everyone here (including wiseguy re: Newsradio). Although I appreciate that the Slate author is a UM fan, I think she really mischaracterized the show. I've actually always thought of UM as a much classier and artfully produced show than AMW. I mean, John Walsh has done a great service to the country, but he's not an on-screen force in the same vein as Robert Stack, Rod Sterling, Paul Winfield, or Hitchcock. And really, you're comparing apples to oranges. AMW presents itself as an extension of law enforcement while UM was always a show about people who want answers, whether it be in the context of criminal justice, a miracle, lost love, or what have you. It's "let's get the bastards!" vs. "the truth is out there...somewhere..." Overall, the article wasn't very thoughtful or insightful.

[Kane]

Although I appreciate that the Slate author is a UM fan, I think she really mischaracterized the show. I've actually always thought of UM as a much classier and artfully produced show than AMW. I mean, John Walsh has done a great service to the country, but he's not an on-screen force in the same vein as Robert Stack, Rod Sterling, Paul Winfield, or Hitchcock. And really, you're comparing apples to oranges. AMW presents itself as an extension of law enforcement while UM was always a show about people who want answers, whether it be in the context of criminal justice, a miracle, lost love, or what have you.

You hit the nail in the head. It's true about what you said about John Walsh not being the same kind of on-screen force as people like Robert Stack. Shows like UM and AMW may have a lot of the same ideas, but the presentation of each series is generally different. UM was its own show as much as AMW is its own show. When you do "copycats" shows, you can't be expected to do it in the exact same way as other shows. What works for one show may not work well for another. There's no explanation for that, other than the mere fact that it's just the way it is.

[wiseguy182]

I would hate to think there was a war between the two shows, was there one? With all of the utter dreck on t.v. nowadays, I would think there would certainly be enough room on the schedule for both shows. Since they weren't ever scheduled at the same time on the same day to my knowledge, I'm not sure how much of a war it could be called. I wish crime didn't exist, but it does and when it comes to getting criminals off the streets, the war should be between good guys versus bad guys and not network versus network.

[Kane]

I would hate to think there was a war between the two shows, was there one?

Well, someone on this board once mentioned that Fox ran a TV spot critical of UM. But if there was a real war between UM and AMW, chances are it was more private than public. So if anyone at UM had any negative feelings toward the AMW crowd or vice versa, I doubt they would publicly acknowledge it. I think they wanted to avoid the risk of publicly saying something that could later come back to haunt them.

Besides, this would go to show that there are things they'd say in private, but not in public. It also means they are just like the rest of us; we all say things in private that we'd never say in public. It's really common sense, because not everything we say is meant for public consumption.


I wish crime didn't exist, but it does and when it comes to getting criminals off the streets, the war should be between good guys versus bad guys and not network versus network.

Only a fool would argue otherwise. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." So if the good guys get too divided, not only would they be hurting one another, but they would also be damaging their credibility (and perhaps their reputation) with the general public.