From: Eleanor White <raven1@mail.nas.net>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 07:55:19 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:06:16 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Media Not Covering-Up' - White


 >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

 >>From: Eleanor White <raven1@mail.nas.net>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 07:22:34 +0000
 >>Subject: Re: SDI 190 - 'Media Not Covering-Up'

 >>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 10:49:37 EDT
 >>>Subject: Re: SDI 190 - 'Media Not Covering-Up'

 >For the life of me I don't recall _any_ of us saying the media
 >doesn't cover UFO stories because they are "Old News". From my
 >perspective, I pointed out for TV we need video... without
 >pictures it's radio...for the most part if we don't have
 >pictures or video, there is no story.

I wasn't taking notes, Michael, apologies. Someone did
say that, and furthermore, that isn't the first media person
who has used that exact excuse that I've heard in the past
month.

By the way, there is another obvious disinformational excuse
making the rounds: "Government doesn't know any more than we
do." That is harder to rebut because of course, we don't
actually know how much info is in government files. I don't have
a really hard-hitting response, but we can say that government
knows at the very least as much as the civilian community knows,
and that alone is enough to show that UFOs are being flown by
some intelligent entity.

 >Further, as I pointed out,
 >in the U.S. it isn't a crime for the government to cover-up its
 >ufo knowledge...

That is a _terrific_ observation. I hope Steven G. Bassett will
make the submission of a law requiring disclosure part of his
campaign.

 >and while the story in and of itself is
 >obviously important, without the implication of government
 >scandal its hard to get any type of news executive to commit the
 >necessary resources.

 >With the exception of operations like the BBC and CBC, most
 >broadcasters are in business and must be profitable. Without a
 >sensation, those execs won't believe viewers will tune in... and
 >yes, I think proof of the existence of Aliens would be pretty
 >sensational... but of course, no such proof exists. Perhaps it
 >could be dug out with years of effort, legal challenges and a
 >big pile of dough... but no business could put up that kind of
 >effort with such little promise of return.

Besides the sensational items, you have "departments" that
report, perhaps not on every show, but off and on. Things like
"human interest" items, good samaritan incidents, science
oddities like Dan Rather's broadcast of a frog being levitated
in a strong magnetic field.

Even a 30-second sound bite of, say, Steven Bassett's
campaign progress, for example, would hardly empty the
budget and would be welcome by the high percentage of
viewers who believe government his hiding UFO information.

New crop circle formations, with screening to ensure only those
which were observed forming, or were too complex to be done
overnight, would only take up ten or 15 seconds of a news
broadcast.

Having a pro-UFO person presenting the facts of a sighting with
physical traces, and NOT following with a debunker who has the
last and most long-lasting impression in the mind of the viewer,
would be a very welcome "first" for TV.

I suspect more than one executive has thought to himself,
"Aah... if people want to see that stuff they can go to Art
Bell's web site." That's another hurdle.

 >Before we climb too far up our high horse, let's remember that
 >Canadians spend a billion dollars a year on the Canadian
 >Broadcasting Corporation but the latest... and to my knowledge,
 >the only UFO/Paranormal news series to air nationally was
 >produced by Global... a fact also mentioned on SDI.

 >Does this mean the media is doing a good or even adequate job
 >covering UFOs? Probably not for the true believers, but
 >remember, for news operations to run a story, we've almost got
 >to have good enough evidence to stand up in court and the more
 >controversial the topic, the truer this is.

To find the truth, and an important part of that is to get at the
information in government files, I believe it is first necessary to
motivate the public to start asking their MPs questions. To have
that happen, the public's interest must be kindled and the flames
kept alive by the most interesting stories which meet the approval
of researchers like EBK, John Velez, Victor Viggiani, Stanton
Friedman's class as probably valid.

To cover the chance an invalid story could make it to air, you
use a brief disclaimer phrase.

And Nick Balaskas' work in Ottawa archives clearly shows there
is a gold mine awaiting there - possibly of better quality than
that in the U.S.

I'm not sure how you would take UFO incidents to court. Would
you accuse the aliens in absentia of kidnapping? Would you sue
the government to disclose information you haven't seen and don't
know is there?

I'm suggesting that motivating the public to insist on disclosure is
the surest course to success, and UFO and crop circle stories is
one of the best ways to do that. It's like "attacking from the
rear."

By the way, and I'm sure you appreciate this, it is important to
_not_ include other paranormal events within this occasional
news "department". That would allow debunkers to distract the
public with chatter about matters unrelated to UFO disclosure.

 >Where is the court-quality evidence for UFOs? I personally
 >believe in their reality and use every opportunity to get UFO
 >stories on the air at City tv, in Toronto... but when the only
 >'evidence' is a witness of limited credibility without any form
 >of supporting materials, like independent witnesses or again,
 >video, than no matter how sincere the person might be, they're
 >still in the same league as people who claim to see and speak to
 >God on regular basis. We don't doubt they are sincere, it might
 >even be true but in general most media won't touch it.

OK - run it by EBK and others first, and insist on only stories
with two or more witnesses.

And a clip of a serious speech or seminar hosted by someone like
Stanton Friedman can be used without such credibility fears.
Even 5 seconds of a clip of Dr. Friedman delivering a speech
will set the tone for engaging public interest. Doesn't have to
be a big splashy story.

In many fields of struggle, I think it's common for people to
yearn for a big splashy solution, while forgetting the tale of
the tortoise and the hare.

 >But the least likely scenario is the one most frequently
 >cited... the ever-popular media cover-up. While TV and Radio are
 >susceptible to government pressure, because of government
 >licensing requirements, the fact is most of the media is made up
 >of thousands of independent newspapers, magazines, radio and
 >television stations. The Soviets managed that type of
 >information suppression, but only by limiting the number of
 >media outlets. In our current multi-channel universe, every
 >publication and broadcaster is looking to gather more readers,
 >listeners or viewers that their competition... and if running
 >wall-to-wall UFO stories would bring in the numbers, the media
 >wouldn't hesitate. And speaking as a professional journalist of
 >more than 2 decades, I can tell you definitive proof of alien
 >contact with earth would get me ACTRAs and Pulitzers from now
 >until eternity and a shining spot in the journalists hall of
 >fame. But I won't base my retirement plans on the possibility.

I've worked in big business too. All it takes is a facial
expression or bit of body language from the "big guy" and
censorship is accomplished as surely as if there were a squad of
armed soldiers posted behind the reporter's desk. You know that.

 >Perhaps the problem, at least as far as TV goes, is the mis-
 >conception that Television is an information medium. It isn't,
 >nor is it an educational or entertainment medium. In fact TV is
 >an _advertising_ medium, the programs are there to space out the
 >ads, not the other way around.

TV can be used as an information medium if the will to do so
is there. Again, you only need to inject a few seconds of UFO
information at any one time, as long as it is done _regularly_.
Just like exercise versus middle-aged flab.

 >But as I said, that's not to say
 >public broadcasters are any better.. they aren't. Ask John Velez
 >about his PBS experience.

I know. My cousin is Hedrick Smith, formerly of the New
York Times Moscow Bureau, participant on Washington
Week in Review, and now a PBS producer. I was not able
to motivate him to attend Dr. Greer's May 10th conference,
even though he lives close by in Maryland. I was also not
able to persuade him to take on another cause of similar
importance to UFOs.

 >Sagan once said extraordinary claims require extraordinary
 >proof... and that's especially true of the media in general and
 >TV in particular.

I agree - and I recommend small but _regular_ high quality info
bits on your channel to start the public interest ball rolling.


Eleanor White