Ok, thinking about this some more, I'm very suspicious of their motivation.
As a base thought, women make up something like 70%-76% of communication and journalism majors. Advertising also skews to women.
As I mentioned earlier, modern media is skewing tabloid because there's a lack of interest in becoming investigative reporters. I'd mentioned this months ago re: The Business Insider article on the Manosphere. The modern millennial journalist has already drawn their conclusion before writing any 'investigative' story, because true research takes time and effort; coming to their own conclusion would require observation, consideration and original thought; and their minds aren't open to the possibility that they don't already know everything there is to know on any subject and that their morality isn't superior to anyone else's.
So why exactly do they want to do a story on you?
Not putting you down here, my man, but, realistically:
- Your radio show has varied between 4,000 - 9,000 listeners, which is damn impressive so quickly, but is it MSM impressive?
- The Amazon Book Ranking for 'Playboy' is something like #622,000. Again, this isn't MSM notable. So it's odd a major network wants to do a 'story on you'.
So, the potential here is for paranoia. A basic rule of thumb I have is: "never imagine a conspiracy is behind something that could be equally-explained as incompetence." It could honestly be that, which would lead to these two best case scenarios:
- "Let's do a story on a 'Hangover' experience!" (Tabloid 'visual' possibilities: sexy nightclub babes, conspicuous consumption, strippers etc). Google brings them to you, because they're too lazy to do non-computer research. They send out an email or quick phone call, then play Candy Crush or Facebook for the rest of the hour's allotted 'research time'. Meet the girls for a liquid lunch!
- Some chick was thinking about that Ryan Gosling movie and wondered who the guys who teach other guys game are, probably sexually-fantasising about them. Realised it might make a good tabloid story. Google brings them to you, once again, research is too hard.
The Paranoid Thinking:
Darker Scenario:
- "This Red Pill thing is A Thing, isn't it? Can we do something on that?" Expect to get mocked.
Worst Case Scenario:
- ROK has pissed off a lot of people in the last 12 months. Mainly low-resilient upper-middle-class women, who basically are the female population at university, and are the pool from which journalism and communications are drawn. Women are ultra-competitive, and 'punishing' one of us would be a huge notch in their belt. I see that as a bigger story.
In this scenario, it's an 'ambush', and the story is about the 'dark undercurrent of misogyny and bullying rife on the internet'. Words from your articles will be thrown back at you - expect them to pick on the sexual degradation. Prepare for this possible angle beforehand so you aren't visibly flustered. Think about the most likely ambush questions given ROK and your history writing for them so you know exactly what to say. You will need to be the most charming motherfucker alive.
Keep this in mind:
From 'The Devil's Dictionary', by Ambrose Bierce:
"APOLOGIZE, v.i.: To lay the foundation for a future offence."
Like I said, it might never happen. They could simply be aiming for a superficial story, and were that lazy.
I think it's worth getting them on your side though. If it really is a puff piece, and they're serious about watching you teach game to a student, say you think it would be interesting to take a novice. "How about I take one or two of the guys from your office so you can better understand the transformation?" Think the time spent with the guys as
forming a bond with someone in the enemy camp.
You could even suggest before shots of the guys, and then bring them out live after a makeover / game schooling in front of some girls from the office, who could whoop and gasp etc. TV loves that kind of trite shit, and you're stealthily getting the women on your side as well, because they get to
objectify men as a group, which they love doing.
Like I said. Could go either way. The media are lower than dogs to me. A relative was murdered 15 years ago, whilst a friend lost her daughter to a drunk driver about 18 years ago. A couple of times a year someone in both our families gets a call from our local media to comment on or be interviewed about anything that falls under a current murder or drunk driving accident, or involved laws or sentencing. They never fucking forget. No-one has ever commented, yet we all still get them calling: it's the definition of insanity.
