George Knapp: Media Coverage of the Paranormal, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 3-8-2006 @ 02:10 AM by GeorgeKnapp
My belt is buckled and my tin foil hat has a fresh coating of lemony Pledge.

To my knowledge, there is no hands-on government-imposed censorship of the mainstream media concerning UFO/paranormal topics. I realize that a lot of people suspect this to be the case, but it's not true as far as I can tell--not overtly, anyway. No one came to our TV station and warned us to stay away from anymore stories about Lazar, 51, and UFOs. The decision to cover this was ours alone, although we certainly did catch a lot of grief over it---and still do.

Basically, it boils down to credibility and verification. Most UFO tales are pretty wild and cannot be proven to a high degree of certainty, if at all. The proponents are often troubled people, true believers, overly zealous, and lacking in anything that comes close to solid evidence or info. Dan Burisch comes to mind.

For a reporter, the professional risks are very real. I know this as well or better than any MSM reporter in the country, and I'm not boasting by any means. There is never a shortage of news stories to pursue, not in this town anyway, so if a journalist has a choice between covering an interesting or important story that does not carry the same kind of potential stigma, or jumping into the deep end of the UFO pool, it's not a tough choice. The grief doesn't come from the government---not directly anyway. Nor does it come from the general public, since there is still a high level of interest among regular folks. Instead, it comes from fellow journalists. For some reason, reporters, broadcasters, and columnists who have never covered the topic are anxious to heap scorn and ridicule on any of their colleagues who DO give it some attention. That's been my experience, anyway.

There is an arugment to be made that this is not entirely accidental. We know about the recommendations of the CIA's Robertson panel back in the early 50's. The panel suggested that a debunking program be initiated to strip UFOs of their aura of mystery. The so-called 'laughter curtain' or ridicule factor was born at that moment and continues to this day. People who see UFOs or take them seriously must be nuts. It just so happens that a heck of a lot of them are nuts to begin with, which makes it all that much easier to dismiss the subject. UFO proponents who make outlandish claims are eager if unwitting participants in this effort. For a reporter, there is nothing but risk in covering UFOs. What journalist wants to cover the same story as the Weekly World News? No one ever landed a network job or big city TV contract because they broke a UFO story. An opposite result is far more likely.

One other factor is that there is a staggering learning curve when it cmes to UFOs. You can't just run a Google search and get a handle on the field. It's too big and too complicated. It takes a lot of time. For most reporters, it is far easier to tackle something else.


reply posted on 3-8-2006 @ 09:20 PM by Gazrok

There is an arugment to be made that this is not entirely accidental. We know about the recommendations of the CIA's Robertson panel back in the early 50's. The panel suggested that a debunking program be initiated to strip UFOs of their aura of mystery. The so-called 'laughter curtain' or ridicule factor was born at that moment and continues to this day.


Just wanted to add to this. I'd have to research the name, but one of the Robertson Panel members wrote a (verified) letter that actually supported that this effort of (g-sponsored) ridicule was going on even a couple of decades later, regarding a Walter Cronkite special on UFOs.

EDIT - Was going from memory above, but here's the actual names, backup, etc.

From Wikipedia, but you can find in other sources as well...this was just the quickest...


Panel member Thornton Page would later change some of his more stridently skeptical conclusions regarding the Panel's report, and regarding UFO's in general. In his 1969 critique of the Condon Report, Page would lament the "excessive levity" he brought to the Panel's proceeding, detailing how he later thought the UFO subject deserved serious scrutiny.[3]

Hynek's opinions changed in later years as well, so much that he became, to many, the scientifically respectable voice of Ufology. He would lament that the Robertson Panel had "made the subject of UFO's scientifically unrespectable, and for nearly 20 years not enough attention was paid to the subject to acquire the kind of data needed even to decide the nature of the UFO phenomenon."

Many ufologists argue that the Robertson Panel recommendations were put into effect and the resulting official debunkery relegated the subject matter permanently to the fringe, both in the mainstream media and scientific communities. Also after the Robertson Panel, Project Blue Book was reduced in status and stripped of most of duties of investigating serious UFO cases, which were instead secretly turned over to a newly-formed division of the Air Defense Command. Directives were also issued not to discuss the unexplainable cases with the public and to reduce the percentage of unknowns to a minimum.

Though the CIA's official history suggests that the Robertson Panel's conclusions were never carried out, there is evidence that contradicts this. Perhaps the most unambiguous evidence for the Robertson Panel's covert impact on news media reporting about UFOs is a personal letter by Dr. Thornton Page, discovered in the Smithsonian archives by sociologist Michael D. Swords. The 1966 letter, addressed to former Robertson Panel Secretary Frederick C. Durant, confides that Page "helped organize the CBS TV show around the Robertson Panel conclusions." Page was no doubt referring to the CBS Reports TV broadcast of the same year, "UFOs: Friend, Foe, or Fantasy?" narrated by Walter Cronkite. (Incidentally, this program was criticized for inaccurate and misleading presentations). Page's letter indicates that the Robertson Panel was still putting a negative spin on UFO news at least 13 years after the panel met.

Even later, Randles and Hough note that there was a "CIA memo from 1976" which "tells how the agency is still having to 'keep in touch with reporting channels' in ufology (in other words, to spy on UFO groups." (Randles and Hough, 103)





[edit on 4-8-2006 by Gazrok]


reply posted on 12-8-2006 @ 09:03 AM by GeorgeKnapp
I probably should not have boxed myself in by limiting it to 5 or 6 books. (I have nearly 600 UFO-related titles in my personal library.) David Jacob's book is certainly must reading for a serious student of the topic, but if you really want to know about this field, here's what I would recommend.

Start with everything written by Jacques Vallee. I mentioned previously that I consider him to be the most important and savvy person to ever write about the UFO mystery. Anatomy of a Phenomena, UFOs: A Challenge to Science, the trilogy of Revelations, Dimensions, and Confrontations, Forbiden Science, which is a personal diary of his journey, and best of all, in my opinion, the two-fer of Passport to Magonia and Messengers of Deception. If you haven't read these two, ou don't know diddly about UFOs.

In the category of UFO history/coverups/government involvement, I recommend Above Top Secret by Timothy Good, The UFO Coverup by Fawcett and Greenwood, Donald Keyhoe's Flying Saucer Conspiracy, Uninvited Guests by Richard Hall, The Report on UFO's by former Blue Book boss Capt. Edward Ruppelt, The Day After Roswell by Corso and Birnes, Crash at Corona by Friedman/Berliner, and the Condon Report, which was published commercially as The Scientific Study of UFOs.

Those interested in the abduction scenario have a few titles that are mandatory. The Interrupted Journey by John Fuller, Missing Time by Budd Hopkins, and Communion by Whitley Strieber. I realize that Hopkins has been hammered relentlessly over the years but I had the chance to interact with Budd many times in years past and think he is telling it as he knows it. I consider him to be an honest man who really didn't need the abuse but who remains committed to the pursuit. I also realize that Whitley has also been heavily criticized by all sorts of people, including colleagues whose opinion I respect, but if you can read Communion without being moved...and disturbed...you are tougher than me. Even if it were entirely fictional----which I do not believe to be the case---Communion is an incredibly important book, and on several levels. You've simply got to read it. Abduction by Dr. John Mack and Secret Life by Dr. David Jacobs lend academic heft to the topic and are highly recommended.

Here are a few miscellaneous titles worthy of consideration. Alien Harvest by Linda Moulton Howe focuses on animal mutilations but that is deceptive. It is an ambitious attempt to tie a lot of weird stuff together. Jerome Clark has written a couple of versions of his massive and impressive UFO Encyclopedia---if you have a UFO library, it isn't complete without one. The late Phil Klass was much despised by UFO believers, but his books about the subject were important because they forced researchers to stay on their toes. (UFOs Identified is one of his first. Even if you consider it to be propaganda or disinfo---not an unfair description, in my view---you might want to check it out.)

As a final suggestion, consider this: The Gods of Eden by William Bramley. It doesn't really fit into any category, but it really got under my skin and into my head. Not many people in the UFO field gave it much attention, but it kept me awake for several nights and still gnaws at my brain. If you want a walk on the wild side, and truly have an open mind, see if you can find a copy in your local use bookstore. It's a real mind twister.

Oh, you can also check out Hunt for the Skinwalker by Dr. Colm Kelleher and some other guy. Some people like it. Some hate it. Few people forget it. (Shameless Plug Alert.)
Pages:     ^^TOP^^