AirLockAlpha.com

I think it's been a long time since I've written four feature pieces in a week, but this is one that I felt needed to be talked about. And maybe I should keep it in my archives and pull it out every time we post a story that will get some fandom base riled up.

We posted a story earlier this week about "Heroes," talking about a rumor that the network was considering asking "Heroes" producers to wrap things up. The story was marked as "rumor" and even contained a link to Airlock Alpha's rumors policy, which can be found here.

I won't go into the actual policy here. You can read it for yourself, and it's remained virtually unchanged over the years (although we didn't always have a written policy for rumors that was shared publicly, but one that we have abided by).

A rumor is exactly that. Something that is being whispered about, and likely coming from a source who has asked not to be named. Some people think that such rumor reporting is limited to entertainment with the likes of me, Nikki Finke and others. But it's not. Look at CNN's Washington reporting sometime and see how often, especially in their "Ticker" feature, that they talk about rumors, sometimes from a single unnamed source.

Rumors are great because they step beyond a spoon-feed from the networks. If rumors didn't exist, the only stories you would see posted on many entertainment sites would simply be regurgitated press releases. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that would essentially make sites like this nothing more than an extension of the public relations arms of the networks and studios.

There are sites that do just that, and people like them for it. I have nothing against it at all, but that's simply not what I'm interested in running news outlets about. I prefer to do reporting, to try and get information that no one else has, and to get it first. We're not always successful, but we try.

And there are risks that come with reporting rumors. The biggest thing is that a rumor tends to be a snapshot in time and usually comes ahead of final decisions on something. For example, a couple years back, we reported that CBS was going to renew "Jericho." Fans were happy because ratings had been down and the show was definitely on the bubble.

The bad part of that was that a final decision had not been made, and just a week or so later, CBS announced it had canceled the show. Some readers, especially those that came on board because they were "Jericho" fans were confused: We had reported one thing, and another thing happened. However, as we found out later, the initial move was to renew the show. But pretty much at the last minute, CBS decided to pull the plug. So essentially, our story was right in that snapshot in time, but with the risk that comes with rumors, these things can change before any official announcement.

Then there was "Dollhouse" last spring. Everyone, and I mean everyone, was reporting that this show was dead. I mean, it wasn't a far-fetched thing to say. The ratings were nowhere near what Fox was expecting, and were pretty much sitting at the bottom of Fox's lineup with "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles." But in talking to a Fox source, we learned that the eulogies being prepared were premature.

Execs had not exactly been planning to pull the plug. Instead, they were thinking about ways of renewing it. And we became the first outlet to report that Fox could indeed renew the show. In the days that followed, we were attacked by a lot of people (just to prove, I guess, that even if you're providing good news in a rumor report, people will still get angry), including one site that insisted they had solved the non-existent equation of how to determine the fate of show simply by its ratings (fates of shows are decided by dozens, if not hundreds, of different factors, with ratings simply being one piece).

Some of the attacks were mean. Seriously, I've been doing this for a long time and I have a thick skin, but I'm still a human being, as are the people on my staff (well, most of them). But in the end, we were correct. It was a risky move to take, but we had it corroborated, and we kept our fingers crossed that Fox didn't change its mind and suddenly go a different direction.

Many have learned that rumor reports can really help out. If you really love a show, as I'm sure some of these "Heroes" fans who have wasted their energy being nasty to me, then you may want to do something about the story, not about the messenger. If your show is rumored to be on the bubble, then you still have some time to make a splash with the network. Because I'll tell you what, if you wait for an official announcement, you're as good as dead.

Not that you have much of a chance before an official announcement. But as long as a network hasn't publicly spoken up about the fate of a show, you have a chance of at least influencing a decision. And use real snail mail, by the way, and not e-mail. Snail mail takes effort, and if fans are making an effort to tell a network about their favorite show, that resonates better (advice, by the way, the queen of fan campaigns herself, Bjo Trimble, once told me).

Instead, some people have chosen to attack me, and put out nasty (and highly false) claims about me and this site. I'm not going to even dignify the personal attacks with any response, but just to clear the air about something else: We have never, ever, ever guaranteed a single rumor report that has ever appeared on this site. If you read our rumor policy, you will know why: because it is not official.

We have always clearly marked rumors, and we have made an effort to make sure you, as a reader, know when you're reading something unconfirmed. And FYI: Our rumors are never single-sourced, unless it's the most amazing source in the world. We always, always, always independently corroborate them.

Finally, it's only been in the past couple years that we started allowing the networks to respond to our rumors. We always let them in the past, actually, but they weren't quite sure how to handle rumors back then.

But we really do that to be fair to them. They should have a chance to respond to rumors, and if they choose to do it, that statement should be out there. Sometimes it's an honest statement, sometimes its utter bullshit. But either way, the statement is always the same: "What's being reported here is not happening that I've heard of" or something to that effect. It will never be any different.

I mean, could you imagine if a network or studio actually confirmed a rumor ahead of any official announcement? I think the world would end. Seriously. And I don't blame them: Networks and studios want to be in control of the information that comes out about them, just like anybody else on this planet. If you confirm a report that you did not put out there, unless there is obvious evidence smacking you in the face with it, you lose that control, and have allowed the insane to take over the asylum, so to speak.

I can't tell you which statement NBC is giving me, but they have the right to speak up, and they should be allowed to do that. Maybe they are absolutely right -- because remember, we acknowledge the risk that a rumor can be wrong -- or maybe they will do something else.

And sometimes, reports like this can change decisions, too. Back when we were a spoilers site, we would have to wait almost to the last-minute to post spoilers because we had, in the past, caused things to change in storylines and such, simply because of the leak. We didn't report the spoilers to the end of "Terminator: Salvation," but it was spoiler reports from others that caused them to change that ending.

The same is true with rumors. Because nothing is official with what we report, sometimes a network or studio might shift a decision because of the outcry preview they are getting about a certain story. Or sometimes, they might make a change out of spite.

When we reported at mid-season last year that "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" was getting the ax, Fox went back to the table with Warner Bros. Television and worked out a new deal that allowed them to do a back-half of the season. It's hard to tell if our story caused that to happen, but the timeline that we learned had us reporting the cancellation report first, and then the two sides going back to work out an agreement.

So seriously, we are just trying to do our job. If you don't like rumors, then maybe this isn't the place for you. We are not a site that kowtows to the networks or studios. People think that since I sold the "SyFy" name to NBC Universal that I'm suddenly an extension of their PR arm. I'm not. And NBCU has always respected our position on this, even if they disagree with our methods. And other networks are the same (well, not really Fox ... they are still pissed at us, I believe, about our "Terminator" story).

But focus your organizing energy on saving your show, not attacking the messenger. After 11 years of doing this online, trust me, I can take it, and we'll still be here after your assault is over. And seriously, the more you mention us online, the bigger our traffic gets, so if you really want to keep assaulting us, please do.

I would rather, however, you focus your energy on maybe trying to save your show. I have been personally disappointed in "Heroes" for some time, but the last three episodes have really grabbed my attention. And I really like what I'm seeing, and hope this level of storytelling continues.

Right now, I don't want to see "Heroes" go off the air at the end of the season. But if you look at the ratings, would you be surprised if it did?