RELEVANCY - The Media´s Absence in Reporting Ufology
Steve Bass
August 02, 2008
In many days past, a naïve American public viewed its media with awe and respect. The media conveyed a sense of dependability, that what you read in the morning papers and saw on the afternoon news was fact. Young, impressionable children dreamed of growing up and working as a correspondent for a large newspaper or appearing on television as an intrepid investigative reporter.
Historical research shows that the American government had the ability at that time to place a throttle on the media, even relaying news stories almost verbatim to how they were later written. The media, from a present-day perspective, seemed to move in lockstep with the government; numerous stories were set aside and not published to keep military and political secrets. A simple telephone call or visit from a military officer was often enough to convince a news reporter or editor to quash a story in the best interests of their country. A good amount of this was necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods, troop movements, and morale.
Eventually the media came into it´s own around the time of the Watergate incident and made a move to the other extreme, exemplar when two intrepid Washington Post reporters broke with tradition and researched their topic, refused the party line they were given, and eventually brought on the downfall of an American president. This evolution in reporting further developed into the present day manifestation, where seemingly no subject is untouchable. Examples of troop movements were televised by imbedded reporters in Iraq, video shot by Iraqi insurgents showing the death of an American soldier were televised or made available for viewing by media outlets, intelligence sources and methods revealed, and embarrassing secrets of politicians, military personnel, corporate executives, television stars, and more are now televised daily in a multitude of formats.
The media seems to have gotten comfortable with its self-proclaimed iconic position in society, and seems to be afraid to research one specific truth. No report of an Unidentified Flying Object or report of contact by aliens is given proper gravity from TV news anchors, or really any gravity at all. If what was seen was true, the media ignored and downplayed an incident on March 13, 1997, when a possible craft of incredible size hovered over a major American city, moving over the states of Arizona, Nevada, and Sonora, Mexico, and the military was doing nothing about it. Video of the Phoenix Lights were given so little air time that they might as well have been dismissed completely. The media does not investigate this, or really any other like event, except to give a 30 second blurb followed by inappropriate humor and ridicule. Even after September 11th, when American civilian and public sensitivity was greatest, unknown craft can still seemingly penetrate American airspace with impunity.
You ask yourself what type of person would have to broach the seriousness of this subject before the American media, and media in general, will address the subject with the depth, respect, and awe it deserves, and proceeds to press for further disclosure of the topic from the US government agencies involved? Would a person with the status of a highly trained astronaut be that type? Maybe even a person with the second longest moonwalk ever, maybe over 9 hours? How about a scientist, an aeronautical or astronautical engineer? Or a graduate of a doctoral program at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology? A US Navy research pilot with carrier experience? Or how about even a Boy Scout?
Surprisingly, it must take more than this. Dr. Edgar Mitchell, PhD was all of this and more. During his recent round of interviews on American, Canadian, British, and Australian media, he was greeted by mockery from desk anchors, shock from reporters, and no serious media coverage within the United States. The UK´s Guardian.co.uk led off their article Ex-Nasa astronaut tells radio presenter he believes in UFOs with a humorous picture of "an alien in a bottle". They proceed to insinuate that ufologists are uneducated "cranks, paranoid delusionals, editors of the Daily Star (and sometimes all three)". In a News Blaze article entitled Former NASA Astronaut Edgar Mitchell: Aliens Have Visited Earth, this reporter refers to Mitchell as a "nutcase". Cold, professional, unbiased reporting, I see. Dr. Mitchell did receive one apology from a Canadian morning news co-anchor from Global News for his less than professional reaction during their interview.
What does this say about the relevance of the current media? A media that breaks its neck to report negativity from Iraq or anything else involving a Republican American president, but cannot bring itself to ask serious questions about phenomena that almost 80% of Americans believe to be real is a media that has lost its relevance in today´s society. Is the media even capable today of policing itself, taking out the trash and delivering significance?
Despite researchers of the high quality of Stanton T. Friedman, MSc (a retired nuclear physicist that has worked on highly classified programs involving nuclear propulsion systems for space travel), John Schuessler, MSc (a retired aerospace engineer for NASA), Dennis Balthaser (a retired civil engineer), and Dr. Bruce Maccabee, PhD (an optical physicist that has worked for the US Navy´s Naval Surface Warfare Center who has contributed to high powered laser research for the Strategic Defense Initiative and Ballistic Missile Defense projects), and the complete accessibility of their research, not a finger is lifted to disseminate this information for the public to even consider. It might surprise those in the media to find out that typical ufologists are well-educated, stable, family-oriented people who see an area in need of research, who have questions of their own, and has the singular courage ignore the teasing, insults, and small-minded heckling to pursue the answers.
How relevant is a media that picks its stories, instead of reporting on what the American public believes in and wants to know more about? How relevant is a media that ignores researchers for pop stars who cavort sans underwear? How relevant is a media that does not have the courage to pursue stories that might have an incredible impact on America and the world?
Believe me; the heavily credentialed Dr. Edgar Mitchell, PhD is not in so much trouble that he needs the likes of me defending him. This American hero can certainly hold his own in a fight. I hold myself privileged, though, to be one of the many who say give this man the freedom to say what he needs to say without stupidity and ridicule.
Historical research shows that the American government had the ability at that time to place a throttle on the media, even relaying news stories almost verbatim to how they were later written. The media, from a present-day perspective, seemed to move in lockstep with the government; numerous stories were set aside and not published to keep military and political secrets. A simple telephone call or visit from a military officer was often enough to convince a news reporter or editor to quash a story in the best interests of their country. A good amount of this was necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods, troop movements, and morale.
Eventually the media came into it´s own around the time of the Watergate incident and made a move to the other extreme, exemplar when two intrepid Washington Post reporters broke with tradition and researched their topic, refused the party line they were given, and eventually brought on the downfall of an American president. This evolution in reporting further developed into the present day manifestation, where seemingly no subject is untouchable. Examples of troop movements were televised by imbedded reporters in Iraq, video shot by Iraqi insurgents showing the death of an American soldier were televised or made available for viewing by media outlets, intelligence sources and methods revealed, and embarrassing secrets of politicians, military personnel, corporate executives, television stars, and more are now televised daily in a multitude of formats.
The media seems to have gotten comfortable with its self-proclaimed iconic position in society, and seems to be afraid to research one specific truth. No report of an Unidentified Flying Object or report of contact by aliens is given proper gravity from TV news anchors, or really any gravity at all. If what was seen was true, the media ignored and downplayed an incident on March 13, 1997, when a possible craft of incredible size hovered over a major American city, moving over the states of Arizona, Nevada, and Sonora, Mexico, and the military was doing nothing about it. Video of the Phoenix Lights were given so little air time that they might as well have been dismissed completely. The media does not investigate this, or really any other like event, except to give a 30 second blurb followed by inappropriate humor and ridicule. Even after September 11th, when American civilian and public sensitivity was greatest, unknown craft can still seemingly penetrate American airspace with impunity.
You ask yourself what type of person would have to broach the seriousness of this subject before the American media, and media in general, will address the subject with the depth, respect, and awe it deserves, and proceeds to press for further disclosure of the topic from the US government agencies involved? Would a person with the status of a highly trained astronaut be that type? Maybe even a person with the second longest moonwalk ever, maybe over 9 hours? How about a scientist, an aeronautical or astronautical engineer? Or a graduate of a doctoral program at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology? A US Navy research pilot with carrier experience? Or how about even a Boy Scout?
Surprisingly, it must take more than this. Dr. Edgar Mitchell, PhD was all of this and more. During his recent round of interviews on American, Canadian, British, and Australian media, he was greeted by mockery from desk anchors, shock from reporters, and no serious media coverage within the United States. The UK´s Guardian.co.uk led off their article Ex-Nasa astronaut tells radio presenter he believes in UFOs with a humorous picture of "an alien in a bottle". They proceed to insinuate that ufologists are uneducated "cranks, paranoid delusionals, editors of the Daily Star (and sometimes all three)". In a News Blaze article entitled Former NASA Astronaut Edgar Mitchell: Aliens Have Visited Earth, this reporter refers to Mitchell as a "nutcase". Cold, professional, unbiased reporting, I see. Dr. Mitchell did receive one apology from a Canadian morning news co-anchor from Global News for his less than professional reaction during their interview.
What does this say about the relevance of the current media? A media that breaks its neck to report negativity from Iraq or anything else involving a Republican American president, but cannot bring itself to ask serious questions about phenomena that almost 80% of Americans believe to be real is a media that has lost its relevance in today´s society. Is the media even capable today of policing itself, taking out the trash and delivering significance?
Despite researchers of the high quality of Stanton T. Friedman, MSc (a retired nuclear physicist that has worked on highly classified programs involving nuclear propulsion systems for space travel), John Schuessler, MSc (a retired aerospace engineer for NASA), Dennis Balthaser (a retired civil engineer), and Dr. Bruce Maccabee, PhD (an optical physicist that has worked for the US Navy´s Naval Surface Warfare Center who has contributed to high powered laser research for the Strategic Defense Initiative and Ballistic Missile Defense projects), and the complete accessibility of their research, not a finger is lifted to disseminate this information for the public to even consider. It might surprise those in the media to find out that typical ufologists are well-educated, stable, family-oriented people who see an area in need of research, who have questions of their own, and has the singular courage ignore the teasing, insults, and small-minded heckling to pursue the answers.
How relevant is a media that picks its stories, instead of reporting on what the American public believes in and wants to know more about? How relevant is a media that ignores researchers for pop stars who cavort sans underwear? How relevant is a media that does not have the courage to pursue stories that might have an incredible impact on America and the world?
Believe me; the heavily credentialed Dr. Edgar Mitchell, PhD is not in so much trouble that he needs the likes of me defending him. This American hero can certainly hold his own in a fight. I hold myself privileged, though, to be one of the many who say give this man the freedom to say what he needs to say without stupidity and ridicule.
Print
Email
