MEDIA WATCHDOG THREAD - Bias & UFO reporting.

Hi All.

If a thread like this already exists, please ignore the following.

I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread devoted to noting the manner in which the various news agencies and networks around the world respond to the UFO phenomena. Many of us have noted bias and use of mockery and other psych tactics when reporting the UFO phenomena - when the issue is not being completely ignored, that is. Perhaps we could use this thread as a sort of 'rogues gallery', a 'hall of shame', and post up quotes, transcripts and videos of the worst offenders. As well as, perhaps, as any outstandingly positive - as in fair and unbiased - responses from the news agencies as well as videos etc. which discuss the attitude of the media to the UFO subject and the tactics they employ.

Perhaps, by doing this, over time we might note some interesting trends, such as which areas of the world have the most fair approach to the UFO debate and which agencies and networks clearly have an agenda of playing it down or undermining it altogether. I know of one excellent video that was posted here today regarding the Fox Network (spits ), so perhaps nosmokinggun would be kind enough to post a link to it in this thread.

As for me, I'll start with a very brief comment from a Reuters reporter made last year regarding the UK Gov's recently released UFO files which made my blood boil. I have the video link but it has been removed from youtube (if anyone knows of a replacement link for this, please do post it). However, I wrote out what was said at the time as I was so astounded by it. This is some months old but is an excellent indicator that:

1) Reuters are hiring morons. Or...

2) This reporter was intentionally trying to undermine the UFO debate with doublespeak tactics. Or...

3) Both of the above.

In response to the release of these files, which certainly support the idea that UFO's are real and are taken seriously by the UK Gov, Paul Chapman of Reuters said:

"Despite the release of the files and more to follow in the coming years, experts say hardened conspiracy theorists are unlikely to be shaken in their belief that the truth is still 'out there"

'Experts say'? Sorry, who? And what do these unnamed 'experts say"? Lets break down the implications of his retarded statement. Apparently, unnamed 'experts' say that despite being handed more proof that UFO's are real 'hardened conspiracy theorists' will continue to believe that UFO's are real. How silly of them.

What? Does that make ANY sense?

That's rather like saying:

"The government released data today indicating that the earth is round. Experts say that despite this evidence that the earth is indeed round, idiotic heretics will continue to claim that the earth is round. How silly of them"

WTF???

Amazing. This report manages to make a snide remark about the beliefs of 'hardened conspiracy theorists' - which is what will be picked up on by the average joe public viewer who isn't paying much attention - and their stubbornness in holding to those beliefs, even while presenting evidence that their beliefs are valid.

And note the pejorative language used of those who take the UFO issue seriously:

- 'HARDENED'. Implies irrationality, unreasonableness.
- "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS". A term used to link the targets to many other completely unrelated issues which are scoffed at by the news media and which they have already marginalized and ridiculed. Guilt by claim of association.

Idiocy, or agenda?



So, please feel free to post your UFO-Media related links, quotes, transcripts and videos, as well as your comments.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]

Not directly related to the reporting of UFO's, but interesting nevertheless (I think), was the way the Scotsman newspaper reported on Gary McKinnon's case.

I noted several times and in several articles that the Scotsman tried to link Gary to the subject of 9/11, but without giving any context. One very short article can be found HERE.

9/11 is mentioned twice and both times Gary's name is mentioned in the sentence:

"The Glasgow-born 42-year-old went from being a cannabis-smoking hacker looking for conspiracy theories on UFOs to America's most wanted cyber-terrorist after 9/11."

And:

"American prosecutors say his hacking caused $700,000 (£430,000) in damage to government systems and that he deliberately set out to destroy files not long after the 9/11 attacks."

Think carefully about what was said and the language used. Does it seem completely legitimate to you? There are no other references to 9/11 in the article. Obviously, for the casual reader there is now a subconscious mental connection between Gary McKinnon and the worst terrorist attack in history. Agenda?

And HERE you will find a BBC article about McKinnon including a picture if the Twin Towers on fire with a caption directly below it which reads: "The US alleges Mr McKinnon attacked sites soon after 9/11"

Again, think very carefully about this and the effect it will have on readers, subconsciously, at least. Also, as I understand it, McKinnon had been accessing US Gov. computers long before and long after 9/11, and, of course, many things happened "after 9/11" that are unrelated to it.

The US Gov. attempts to smear McKinnon are understandable - terrible, but understandable, we expect little more from them - and yet the BBC and the Scotsman also seem to be quite keen to make an indelible connection in the minds of their audience between McKinnon and 9/11. They question is, why?


[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]

Karl 12 created a thread recently called "News Media Complicity and UFOs with Terry Hansen." His first post contains a link to a video of a presentation given by journalist Hansen regarding "the history of censorship and propaganda during the twentieth century and the evidence for media-government collusion over the course of the half-century-long UFO controversy."

Hopefully Karl 12 won't mind me creating a link to his thread HERE




[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]

HERE is a very short video on cultural bias in the media regarding UFO reporting.

I include this as I believe that exploiting cultural bias in one of the tactics that media based debunking uses to undermine the UFO debate, whenever it can.

Here is my link into the thread containing the Fox news biased reporting video.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I shall now set out to scour the usual sites looking for positive and negative reports on the UFO phenomena.

Interesting start:

In 1996, a top-level BBC executive let slip that there is a D-Notice (black-out) on media reporting of black triangle UFOs. The executive, who has kept his identity hidden, is the former producer of a popular BBC science program. He told one investigator that the black triangle UFO has been "heavily D-Noticed" by the British government. Consequently the BBC will not be reporting on the strange UFO, no matter how many witness reports they receive. According to the former producer, the reason the government has seen fit to slap a restrictive notice on reporting about the UFO is because the government has quietly informed the BBC that the craft is part of a new secret military project and is protected under the secrecy laws.

Full article on Reporting on UFOs

reply to post by nosmokinggun


Wow. Great stuff NSG! D-Notice? So they even have jargon at the BBC for government censorship on reporting? I'll have to Google that phrase. Thanks for your input.

reply to post by Malcram


Here u go..

In Britain, a Defence Advisory Notice or DA-Notice (called a Defence Notice or D-Notice until 1993) is an official request to news editors not to publish or broadcast items on specified subjects for reasons of national security.

D Notice explained

I just put in a FOI request on the D Notice regarding the media reporting on Black triangle UFOs I am pretty certain I will not get a response but I wanted to try the system out, if and when I get any response I will post it.

reply to post by nosmokinggun


Amazing. I had no idea about this. I knew that there must be some sort of system by which the media was censored by the UK government, but had never heard of a 'D-Notice'. I had presumed it would be an informal system. So, all they need do is claim 'national security' and a media blackout ensues. Thank goodness we know they would never abuse this.

Originally posted by Malcram
I noted several times and in several articles that the Scotsman tried to link Gary to the subject of 9/11

Very interesting.. listen to the first few minutes of this radio clip.. D Notice mentioned again.. tabloids not interested in helping out.

The tabloid newspaper mentioned.. I checked their coverage and Gary and 9/11 in the same sentence again.. would not say it is off topic he did hack into systems and get information pertaining to UFOs.

OK I know I am posting a lot here but I have been looking into D Notices and found that they have a website.

D Notice website

On there they have an acronym for the committee it is Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC) these are the people that discuss and advise on D notices etc..

This is interesting they post their minutes from meetings on there..

Item 8 para 16:

8. Para 16: DPBAC Review of the Conclusions of the Media-Side's 'Blue Skies' Meeting held on 8 November 2007. The actions taken to implement the ‘Blue Skies’ conclusions approved during the Autumn DPBAC meeting would be covered under Item 3.

item 3

3. The Chairman opened the meeting by welcoming the appointment to the DPBAC of Mr D-J Collins (Director Communications& Public Affairs – Europe, Middle East & Africa of Google), Mr Simon Juden (Chief Executive of the Publishers’ Association) and Mr Bob Satchwell (Executive Director, The Society of Editors). With the possible exception of local radio, the full range of the UK Media was now represented on the DPBAC.

I wonder what Blue skies could mean?? Why would the media be interested in Blue skies.. Nice note to say the Full range of the media is now represented.. notice even google is on there.. controlling the search engines maybe.. Any ideas..?


[edit on 3/16/2009 by nosmokinggun]

reply to post by nosmokinggun

Stellar work NSG and it's all very welcome! So you found another instance where the Scotsman newspaper had linked Gary to 9/11 in the same sentence?

t seems to me that some of this goes beyond the publicly known aspects of D-Notice, which, as far as I understand it, is supposed to simply involve 'blackout', as in the case of the 'triangular UFOs'. I wonder if D-Notice has a covert aspect of active propaganda (such as say, the media being given the brief to demonize Gary by linking him with 9/11)? Seems likely, not just based on the evidence, but simply on the basis of pragmatism. If they CAN use the tabloids and news media for propaganda purposes under the guise of 'protecting national security' then why wouldn't they?

And as you say, it's rather interesting to find that the "full range of the UK Media" is represented on the DPBAC.

And 'Blue Skies"? Who knows, but the name is certainly intriguing.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


It was actually a different newspaper, the same newspaper they mention at the beginning of the radio clip.

Article

I think your right regarding the D Notices who knows what they could do or get the media to do.. but this is just relating to the UK, I liked your post with Paul Kimball I found it interesting that sightings are not taken seriously or reported on from a lot of countries other then the obvious ones, UK, US, Australia etc, is this really down to cultural issues or is it because our media is unable to control the media that comes out of those countries so it gets no air time.

CNN Video - Stephen Bassett chatting about disclosure he ends on we need a press that is an adversary to the government he talks about how the press have gone along with the government for the last 60 years and that needs to end..

So now we have examples of the BBC, the Scotsman newspaper and the Sun newspaper all making statements linking Gary and 9/11, each time in the same sentence and each time without any context. For example:

"A BRIT geek wanted in the US for hacking into Pentagon defence computers after 9/11" - The Sun.

They certainly seem intent of making a connection between Gary and the crimes of 9/11 in the minds of their readers and viewers don't they?

Did the UK Gov. decide that it was in the UK's own 'national security interests' to have Gary hurried out to the US without any public fuss or uproar and were they able to use the media to help make sure this was possible? If so, what did Gary know from accessing US computers that might pose a UK 'national security' risk? I suppose IF Gary had found evidence of the US UFO coverup, as he claimed, and the ET/UFO issue is seen to be a general 'national security' threat to many Governments then, Gary's discovery (if he actually found anything) could be seen as a problem for all those Governments, hence the UK being quick to hand him over to the US and the UK media's loaded language when discussing Gary's case. Interesting.

And thanks for that last video. I love to see the media getting set straight on their own shows LOL. Basset did a good job.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]

Here is another FOX video where the interviewer belittles the interviewee.

With comments like its nutty and I will ask a congressman probably not on camera..

The media need to start taking this seriously!

Notice how he uses the word activist.. that's a strong word to use.



[edit on 3/21/2009 by nosmokinggun]

Many people might not be aware that in Britain the Broadcasting act, which governs radio and TV, forbids the discussion of the paranormal in a *Serious manner*. That is, it is in effect illegal to broadcast anything which treats any paranormal subject as a serious subject.

The DJ Nicky Campbell was actually warned of his behaviour , during the 1990s when his radio talk show did try to address the subject of UFOs with a reasonable amount of genuine inquiry.

That is why, when shows about UFOs appear that take the subject seriously in any way , they have the disclaimer that *This programme is for entertainment only*. it's a crafty way of circumventing the act...

[edit on 21-3-2009 by FireMoon]