TZUTC: -0400
MSGID: 303.fidonet_ufo@1:3634/60 2d60901b
PID: Synchronet 3.19b-Win32 master/a2a9dc027 Jan  2 2022 MSC 1928
TID: SBBSecho 3.14-Win32 master/a2a9dc027 Jan  2 2022 MSC 1928
BBSID: RICKSBBS
CHRS: UTF-8 4
SUBJECT: FORUM UFO POLL ON COMPUSERVE                        FILE: UFO1170


>> 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 Speiser

Throughout 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.

************************************
              
  **********************************************
  * THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
  **********************************************

Andy
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Win32
 * Origin: Rick's BBS - telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23 (1:3634/60)
SEEN-BY: 1/120 4/0 18/0 90/0 105/81 106/201 123/0 126 180 525 755
SEEN-BY: 123/3001 3002 124/5016 128/187 129/14 305 153/757 7715 154/30
SEEN-BY: 154/110 203/0 218/700 220/6 221/0 6 222/2 226/30 227/114
SEEN-BY: 229/110 317 426 428 470 664 700 705 240/1120 5832 250/1 263/1
SEEN-BY: 266/512 280/464 5003 5006 291/111 292/854 8125 301/1 320/219
SEEN-BY: 322/757 341/66 200 234 396/45 423/120 460/58 633/280 712/848
SEEN-BY: 712/1321 770/1 900/0 902/0 26 904/0 905/0 2320/105 3634/0
SEEN-BY: 3634/12 56 57 60 5020/400 5075/35
PATH: 3634/60 12 222/2 263/1 280/464 341/66 902/26 229/426