UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 1

Re: Possible Action Pending In Reed UFO Fraud -

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 16:23:52 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 19:43:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Possible Action Pending In Reed UFO Fraud -

 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Possible Action Pending In Reed UFO Fraud
 >Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 08:33:19 -0500

 >>From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129@attbi.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Possible Action Pending In Reed UFO Fraud
 >>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:38:28 -0500

 >>The Reed hoax probably wouldn't have gained any attention if it
 >>hadn't been for those who promoted him on national radio, at
 >>conferences, etc. Reed was not the only one to benefit from his

 >>Boycott the enablers.

 >I won't defend a co-conspirator, of course, but the ability to
 >parse the enabler from the co-conspirator can be difficult to

Alfred, there is a difference between responsible reporting and
yellow journalism. For example, which do you think is more
responsible for delivering factual information (or something
close to the truth) - CNN or Jerry Springer? Time Magazine or
The National Enquirer? Which would you use in objective
research? Which would you want the public to buy?

 >EBK (myself or even you) can be taken in by hoaxer just as
 >easily as the other hoaxed and earn, for their trouble,
 >innocence and journalistic bravery, your boycott?

Yes, any of us can be taken in by a hoaxer but we can lessen
those mistakes by carefully investigating and researching the
claimant _before_ putting them on the air. It's one thing to
allow just anyone to appear on a show (at a conference, etc.)
and another thing to actively screen prospective guests. (I have
no idea what EBK does on his show as I have never tuned in.)

 >Then we get
 >_no_ unfiltered information. The "enabler" has a bigger voice
 >and a wider reach and is, many times, the only reason we get the
 >information we get, at all.

And it is _because_ the program hosts (producers and directors)
have a bigger voice and wider reach that they have a greater
responsibility to seek quality over quantity in the guests they
share with the public. I realize it's hard to find high quality,
honest guests week after week especially when it comes to the
study of phenomena but I'd rather have all music than listen to
some lunatic spread all kinds of BS to the world through
national and international radio, TV, etc.

When it comes to phenomena, especially UFOs, quality research
and qualified researchers are few and far between. However,
there are plenty of theorists with wild ideas and claims willing
to share their thoughts with anyone who will listen.
Unfortunately, many of these programs on the airways will do
anything to boost ratings or just keep the show on the air so
they put just about anyone on the air. Here and there they share
interesting research/information but by and large they go for
quantity over quality - anything to keep the audience's

It does no good to complain to the program hosts, producers
and/or directors because they focus more on the ratings than the
content of their programs. (Even though hoaxes have been clearly
demonstrated to Art Bell he continues to present/promote them on
his programs and on his web site.)

 >No -- to keep the facilitators,
 >like EBK, in business they can't be made to pay the freight of a
 >lying sociopath until they collude in the lie... then they
 >_earn_ their candidacy for chemical castration and punitive
removal from the journalistic gene pool..... <g>

I never even mentioned EBK, Alfred, you did. I thought we were
talking about the Reed hoax and those involved. But any median
available to large populations must be held responsible for the
content of the programs presented.

Actually, we are all enablers (what you have changed to
"facilitators") as long as we accept the status quo and do
nothing to change it. As long as we _allow_ low quality,
sensationalized materials to permeate the UFO community, we
promote the very concepts we abhor. Each hoax, each lie, each
unfounded claim contributes to the image we, as a community,
project to the world. We increase the "giggle factor" by
allowing the nut cases to speak for us.

High quality research and information is available yet is rarely
found on shows like Art Bell and Jeff Rense because... the
producers and directors are myopic. They see only that which
fits what I have come to call the "UFO/alien paradigm". If it
looks like a UFO, flies like a UFO, acts like a UFO, then it
must _be_ a UFO and is therefore, news. Any being which cannot
be identified as human must come from another planet or be a
new, exotic species. Anything suggesting otherwise is not part
of the "UFO/alien paradigm" and virtually invisible to those who
sell sensationalism . As long as the media stays locked into the
UFO/alien paradigm, so will the public. This is why nothing
really changes, it's a viscous circle.

A. Hebert

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com