Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank caught red-handed feigning interest in Stephen Bassett’s panel discussion on UFOs at the National Press Club in 2007 [CREDIT: Paradigm Research Group]
As their coverage of the scamdemic has shown even more clearly, the WaPo and NYTimes and the rest of the MSM, are now just "The Ministry of Truth" as foretold by George Orwell in "1984".
There are no "Journalists" employed there, just propagandists.
Supposedly, a free press acts as one of the checks and balances in a democracy, but that's more of an ideal than a reality. Investigative journalists rely on being given stories, before they spring into action. Kean was fed the AATIP story, and even Ross Coulthart was pushed by some Aussie military pilots to look into UAP.
Any investigative journos following up on 'Seven', or the very significant (circumstantial) evidence indicating that Covid was created at Wuhan by U.S. funded research into gain-of-function? What happened with TWA800?
Despite the claim that governments can't keep secrets, how many truths, large and small, still remain unknown to the masses?
Psychology seems to determine whether an individual is going to follow the data. It's a simple decision: If the data are abnormal, am I going to attempt to find out why? (Or do I dismiss the evidence as irrelevant?)
Plus there are concerns as to how I'll be perceived when presenting my information. Is the effort worth the aggro? Is it potentially going to make me look foolish? Is it dangerous?
There's also a term 'the need for cognition'. When you look at individuals like James McDonald and Hynek and their work, how does that stack against Menzel and Klass? Which side has the apparently greater level of curiosity and skills?
As far as open questions go, the field of ufology is a target-rich-environment. Plenty to go around for everyone who's interested.
I would just add the word "sometimes" to the sentence about investigative reporters relying on "being given stories." In particular, I'd point out that Kean had worked this topic for years in serious ways, breaking fresh ground, and bringing credible sources up for examination. Tips come along when people see reporters doing the work, which she did. The sentence above makes it seem like some sort of passive act, whereas when the system works, good reporters do good work, which leads credible sources to come to them with information.
I know what you mean, but I have a particular point of view in that the AATIP story was exaggerated to make it front page news. I have a *lot* of respect for Leslie Kean, but I also think that this specific situation was manipulated by Mellon & Elizondo.
(Harry Reid + 2 other senators, don't represent the entire "government", nor was the $22m funds put into military UFO research - it went to Bigelow's BAASS which was mainly Skinwalker investigations. But that's not how the story broke. Plus we've seen no evidence of any analyses by 'AATIP' - and no mention of AATIP research in the UAPTF report. Nothing via FOIA.)
You nailed it. When it comes to covering culturally unsanctioned matters, the most formidable constraints of all are internal. Self-policing has probably done more to inhibit an honest appraisal of the data than the quality of the data itself.
Here's a well resourced piece from The Hill. It's a yeoman's job of laying out the origins of the UFO stigma.
"A paradigm shift is underway. As senior officials increasingly open up about such encounters, the stigma that long precluded serious discussion of UFOs continues to crumble.
Largely unknown, however, is that the UFO taboo – and an array of outlandish alien conspiracy theories – are vestiges of Cold War paranoia."
Whichever metaphor one chooses - 'swimming against the tide,' 'kicking against the pricks,' etc. - the skepti-bunkers' antipathetic arguments are increasingly becoming irrelevant, almost hysterical. According to the latest Gallup survey the number of citizens who think "some UFOs have been alien spacecraft visiting Earth from other planets or galaxies" has risen eight percentage points during the past two years, to 41 percent. In a July survey commissioned by The Hill, 61 percent of respondents said they think the gov. is withholding information about the true nature of UFO/UAP.
Despite the ongoing geopolitical crises, you can bet congressional staffers are watching those numbers.
Better swim and kick harder, dudes. The "mania" is swelling.
As their coverage of the scamdemic has shown even more clearly, the WaPo and NYTimes and the rest of the MSM, are now just "The Ministry of Truth" as foretold by George Orwell in "1984".
There are no "Journalists" employed there, just propagandists.
Supposedly, a free press acts as one of the checks and balances in a democracy, but that's more of an ideal than a reality. Investigative journalists rely on being given stories, before they spring into action. Kean was fed the AATIP story, and even Ross Coulthart was pushed by some Aussie military pilots to look into UAP.
Any investigative journos following up on 'Seven', or the very significant (circumstantial) evidence indicating that Covid was created at Wuhan by U.S. funded research into gain-of-function? What happened with TWA800?
Despite the claim that governments can't keep secrets, how many truths, large and small, still remain unknown to the masses?
Psychology seems to determine whether an individual is going to follow the data. It's a simple decision: If the data are abnormal, am I going to attempt to find out why? (Or do I dismiss the evidence as irrelevant?)
Plus there are concerns as to how I'll be perceived when presenting my information. Is the effort worth the aggro? Is it potentially going to make me look foolish? Is it dangerous?
There's also a term 'the need for cognition'. When you look at individuals like James McDonald and Hynek and their work, how does that stack against Menzel and Klass? Which side has the apparently greater level of curiosity and skills?
As far as open questions go, the field of ufology is a target-rich-environment. Plenty to go around for everyone who's interested.
I would just add the word "sometimes" to the sentence about investigative reporters relying on "being given stories." In particular, I'd point out that Kean had worked this topic for years in serious ways, breaking fresh ground, and bringing credible sources up for examination. Tips come along when people see reporters doing the work, which she did. The sentence above makes it seem like some sort of passive act, whereas when the system works, good reporters do good work, which leads credible sources to come to them with information.
I know what you mean, but I have a particular point of view in that the AATIP story was exaggerated to make it front page news. I have a *lot* of respect for Leslie Kean, but I also think that this specific situation was manipulated by Mellon & Elizondo.
(Harry Reid + 2 other senators, don't represent the entire "government", nor was the $22m funds put into military UFO research - it went to Bigelow's BAASS which was mainly Skinwalker investigations. But that's not how the story broke. Plus we've seen no evidence of any analyses by 'AATIP' - and no mention of AATIP research in the UAPTF report. Nothing via FOIA.)
Fair points
You nailed it. When it comes to covering culturally unsanctioned matters, the most formidable constraints of all are internal. Self-policing has probably done more to inhibit an honest appraisal of the data than the quality of the data itself.
Here's a well resourced piece from The Hill. It's a yeoman's job of laying out the origins of the UFO stigma.
"A paradigm shift is underway. As senior officials increasingly open up about such encounters, the stigma that long precluded serious discussion of UFOs continues to crumble.
Largely unknown, however, is that the UFO taboo – and an array of outlandish alien conspiracy theories – are vestiges of Cold War paranoia."
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/566963-ufo-stigma-alien-conspiracy-theories-are-relics-of-cold-war
I disagree with some of his points near the end. Still, it ought to be seen by reporters writing about UAP/UFO.
The thing is, newsrooms were just as likely to be 'socialized' by the CIA's "training and debunking" program as anyone else.
How does that old reporter's parable go?
- You pitch a story to the editor a few times, but it gets nixed.
- You still think about a way to do the story, but give up pitching it.
- You stop thinking about it, never revisit it, and focus on not rocking the boat.
Something like that.
I'd say that's the general formula. Had I not seen one myself, along with two witnesses, I doubt I would've stuck with it.
That's what Ross Coulthart found earlier in his career
Until he thought about it and moved forward
Whichever metaphor one chooses - 'swimming against the tide,' 'kicking against the pricks,' etc. - the skepti-bunkers' antipathetic arguments are increasingly becoming irrelevant, almost hysterical. According to the latest Gallup survey the number of citizens who think "some UFOs have been alien spacecraft visiting Earth from other planets or galaxies" has risen eight percentage points during the past two years, to 41 percent. In a July survey commissioned by The Hill, 61 percent of respondents said they think the gov. is withholding information about the true nature of UFO/UAP.
Despite the ongoing geopolitical crises, you can bet congressional staffers are watching those numbers.
Better swim and kick harder, dudes. The "mania" is swelling.
Billy, doesn't look like you're intending to read Achenbach's NYT's best seller "Captured by Aliens"... oops I mean WAPO best seller
Ah... the italicized counterpoints.
For the last seven minutes (I'm a slow reader),
I felt like I was elbow to elbow with Billy at The Pineda Inn.
Man, that was a tasty beer.
Thanks for sharing Billy.
Just three months before beaujolais nouveau season, brother. Time for that 25-year reunion.