Look, I butter my bread as a writer, and as such, I'm wont to give in to puns and wordplay. Mine aren't always clever, but then again, what can you expect from a guy who never completely outgrew his ability to turn every sentence into a sexual double entendre?But I digress.
My point here is that it's easy to indulge in some cheap jokes, and hell, I encourage it most of the time, but it's irritating when a paranormal topic is derided out of hand simply because it's, well, not within our understanding of "normal."
Such is the case with the Bigfoot article in Monday's "Tails of the City" by Amelia Glynn in SFGate, an edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. The entry, in the pets edition, is an "and in lighter news..." piece with a load of goofball comments and not much newsworthiness.
Without having any news hook or reportage, by placing it in the pets section, and by being so loaded down with jokes (the only thing missing is a crack about Sasquatch just being a shirtless Robin Williams out for a hike), it fails to examine the why of Bigfoot and of Bigfoot believers. What could have been an insightful examination on many levels with commentary or current news is only played for laughs.
Plain and simple, it's filler, folks. That's fine since filler can be fun, and clearly I'm a believer of poking fun at the paranormal. But I hope to never dismiss it. If I do, I doubt it will be in a newspaper or will lack any real point (and yes, this is coming from a pop culture writer).
On the upside, the article at least referenced this National Geographic piece from '03 that treats the topic more substantially.
-aaron sagers