UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 2

Re: 'Media Not Covering-Up' - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 10:07:02 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 13:20:55 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Media Not Covering-Up' - Maccabee

 >From: Michael J. Woods <mike.woods@sympatico.ca>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:31:12 -0400
 >Subject: Re: 'Media Not Covering-Up'

 >>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5@houston.rr.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 21:27:58 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: 'Media Not Covering-Up'

 >>>From: Michael Woods <mike.woods@sympatico.ca>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Media Not Covering Up
 >>>Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:29:58 -0400


 >>Have you read 'The Missing Times'? It describes a few nuances in
 >>the situation. Some regional and local small-town papers do, in
 >>fact, do a reasonable job of covering UFO stories. It's the
 >>national media (TV networks, the New York Times, etc.), that do
 >>an abysmal job of it.

 >I asume the thrust of 'The Missing Times' is that through
 >government pressure and or business collusion there's concerted
 >effort to keep UFOs out of the media. Did a pretty poor job with
t>he Fox Network, between the X-Files, Sightings, even the Alien
 >Autopsy (Quelch those flames right now... I'm not saying anything
 >about A-A one way or the other) although don't press me to be
 >completely convinced those were 100 % good.

A point should be, made here: don't mix up serious reporting
with engtertainment. It's OK for the major or minor press to
present UFO related stuff, including for example sightings by
police officers (who can't distinguish stars from UFOs... e.g.,
Jan 5, 2001 in Ohio,was it?),as eyes-wide-open-ga-ga-wow-what-
  was-that entertainment. The friction doesn't come until some
reporter tries to stand back from the fray and say, let's treat
this seriously, folks. Hence there was no problem with X files,
Alien Autopsy, etc. All of those were so ":ridiculous": the
government didn't have to comment. However, if the major news
media did major articles claiming that at least some UFOs were
ET craft (as almost happened 50 years ago!) you would find the
gov't responding with alacrity.

 >And we're living in a multi-channel universe. While the
 >government could be leaning on the networks and the Times - I'm
 >convinced CBS has been a branch of U.S. government propaganda on
 >at least two major issues - the fact remains that the average
 >journalist... especially the TV breed have monster-egos. If
 >they've sufficent proof of the existence of aliens, they
 >couldn't keep silent unless they were dead because the story is
 >so massive - the rewards would be breath-taking. Virtually any
 >journalist... print, radio or TV, would likely sell their mother
 >into slavery to get the story out and collect the goodies
 >generated thereby.

The problem is with "sufficient proof". Before the major press
stick their neck out they want "absolute" proof... undeniable
(means scientifically verified at institutions) piece(s) of a
spacecraft, guaranteed alien body, etc., Until then, it's all

 >>I've never gotten the impression that TV news operates that way.
 >>In the US, there's a saying about how TV news stations decide
 >>what to cover that's a bit different than Sagan's lofty if
 >>ambiguous standards of evidence: "if it bleeds it leads."

 >I led with my chin there and now I'm bleeding... I blush and
 >hang me head when I say that is just as true here as there.
 >_I've_ told rookies "If it bleeds, it leads...", soh they can
 >focus in faster. But remember, the media also operates under the
 >principal of not letting the facts get in the way of a good
 >story... and if we had a little something to back those UFO
 >claims... its such a _good_ story.

Bad boy! My version is this: the press goes for the throat. A
juicy UFO story is nice, more witnesses the better (e.g.,
{Phoenix. 1997, Carteret, 2001) but so what? witnesses (even
with videocam's) can be fooled. So, take the witness' stories
and then counterbalance that with a standard statement by the
AF... "The Condon commision found no evidence of... the
government denies knowledge... no unknown technology ...
witnesses make mistakes... government does not investigate...
etc. (Pardon me while I throw up!)

[ Next 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