"UFOs and the press" - by j. speiser

>> This article has been submitted to the Journal of the
Mutual UFO Network.--------------------------------------
UFOs and the Press:                    An Assessment of Current Media
Attitudes                                by Jim SpeiserThroughout
the forty-year history of the current UFO era, much of the public's
perception of the phenomenon has been shaped by the press and media
coverage it has received. Over the years that coverage has ranged
in tone from unashamed hysteria to downright ridicule, sometimes
both concurrently.Lately, however, the trend has been progressively
more cynical, perhaps owing to the increasing pervasiveness of
"organized skepticism" and the rise of such groups as CSICOP. Early
on, debunkers such as Phillip Klass correctly decried the media's
uncharacteristic lack of attention to "the other side of the story"
in dealing with reports of paranormal phenomena in general and UFOs
in particular. Now, however, reporters seem to routinely consult with
astronomers, satellite tracking facilities and even the debunkers
themselves when filing a UFO story. On its face, this journalistic
balance is commendable, of course, but there is a tendency to let
the skeptics have the last word, as if to provide a "happy ending"
to the plot to upset the scientific equilibrium. Could reporters' own
cynical attitudes be coloring their coverage of the UFO phenomenon?In
an attempt to gauge the current outlook of the media toward the
subject, I recently touched base with a group of journalists that
meet "online", in a nationwide computer forum called CompuServe. In
an electronic message, I posed a series of questions designed to
delve into the mindset of the American press vis a vis the elusive
UFO.In composing the message, I sought answers to the following:
1) How are main- stream UFOlogists viewed by the press? Have we
succeeded in separating the hard science from the cult aspect of the
phenomenon? 2) Is the media getting all the facts? Are they making
an effort to do so, or is the subject considered so overworked that
even the most superficial details are recorded grudgingly? Are the
skeptics and debunkers considered the final word? 3) Is there a
more-or-less universal, tacit policy of downplaying UFO stories,
in order to avoid comparison with the much-reviled supermarket
tabloids?Many have bemoaned the paucity of in-depth reporting on
the so-called Cosmic Watergate, the thousands of pages of documents
released through the Freedom of Information Act. If ever there
was a carrot on a stick for the American media, the FOIA documents
seemed to be it; yet no Woodward/Bernstein-style expose' has been
forthcoming. However, it occurs to me that "no news is bad news"
in the business of journalism, and if such an inquest had been
undertaken, yet had turned up nothing of value, the fact would
quite likely never have surfaced. "60 Minutes" is not in the habit
of reporting what it has NOT found. So another of my intentions
was to find out if such an investigation had been undertaken, only
to be shelved when it proved fruitless.The CompuServe Journalism
Forum provides an excellent glimpse behind-the-scenes at some of the
attitudes and personalities that shape what we see on our TV screens
and in our newspapers. The 2000 members represent a respectable
cross- section of the journalism community, from newspaper editors
to photographers to network news reporters. While the responses
I received to my message cannot be considered comprehensive,
I believe they provide a good thumbnail sketch of how ufology
looks in the mirror of American culture, the media. Some of the
indications:1) There is indeed a tendency to avoid in-depth UFO
stories for fear of being tarred with the "National Enquirer"
brush. "The more in-depth the story got, the more harebrained the
station or paper might seem.", said one member. "Don't get me wrong
-- I don't necessarily go along with that. I'm just stating what
I believe to be fact."2) Perhaps as a result of (1), the cults
and kooks are still getting the bulk of the press, and seem to
be inextricably associated with the phenomenon in general. The
first response to my inquiry was from a reporter who complained
of regular calls from a man who claimed that aliens were invading
people's bodies at a nearby church.Other members claimed it was
difficult to tell the kooks from the serious in- vestigators. A
radio newsman told of an interview he had done with a skeptic and
a supposedly mainstream ufologist. He claimed that the ufologist,
Dale Goudie, turned out to be a "fanatic" who charged the skeptic
with being an "idiot" and of working for the government. (Upon
reviewing a tape of the interview provided by Goudie, I found no
such invective).3) The reporters are not getting all the facts. My
inquiry revealed that a reporter for Channel 5 in New York, who had
covered the story of the Hudson Valley UFOs and concluded that it
was all a hoax, had never even seen the home videos made of either
the object or the flight of planes!4) My request for information
on UFO investigations that hadn't made it to the airwaves drew a
blank. Either it hasn't been done, or these professionals didn't
know about it. Which brings me to...5) My faith in the American
media is such that I have never subscribed to the theory that the
press is "in on" the Cosmic Watergate at any level. There may be a
pervasive fear of the UFO story in management circles, but I believe
it is based purely on image considerations and not on some unseen
pressure from above. I saw nothing in the CompuServe exchange to
convince me otherwise.Not all of the vibes in the exchange were
negative, and there was at least one useful, positive suggestion:
"Stay away from buzzwords like UFO and Flying Saucer. In my mind,
they instantly conjure up memories of the folks who swear they were
whisked to the planet Twilo for an all-expenses-paid weekend. When
I hear words like SETI, however, I'm a whole lot less skeptical and
a whole lot more interested. [I] think your job is to shift people
into a new serious mode of thinking about the subject if you're going
to get editors, viewers and readers to take you seriously."1987 is
shaping up to be the year of the UFO -- not so much in terms of
sight- ings, but in terms of the amount of public attention that
will be paid the sub- ject, through books, talk shows, symposia,
mini-series, and other mass media e- vents. The press is the major
conduit through which much information will reach the public and,
rightly or wrongly, it is the press' attitudes that will shape the
public's view of our endeavors. Public opinion in turn determines
funding for future work in the field. Hence, it is vital that the
press receive an ad- equate education on UFOs. Judging from the
responses gleaned from the CompuServe correspondence, I'd say we
have our work cut out for us.


Go back to UFO and Aliens index page