CNN.com-UFO research: Findings vs. facts

CNN.com Report

I thought this was an interesting read from a major news source. Five years ago, they would have never published this!

And after all those years, as the saying goes, UFOs remain a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Why so? For one, the field is fraught with hucksterism. It's also replete with blurry photos and awful video. But then there are also well-intentioned and puzzled witnesses.

It was well written! Thoughts?

I acutally thought it was very porrly written. Typically bland, makes no mention of anything useful, reiterates the same crap the same people have spewed out, and ultimately, shows nothing new or leads anyone into a new state of mind.

Just another example of the media and why I seldom look to them for anything except confirmation that something has happened in the world. Dont always get that either.

I guess my point is it wasn't written "tongue and cheek" or as a parody. There was discussion of new technology used in the investigation and advances that have been made.

It's hard to write about UFOs as real news. Sightings happen all the time, and the field is currently flooded with information about sightings and clogged with UFO images of various quality. So unless there's some really spectacular sighting, the field is really just a kind of constantly churning mass of information.

And unlike most news, the UFO field really doesn't have a structured P.R. effort behind it, because there's no money in it. Farmer Ted, who happens to film a flying saucer, doesn't have a Video Press Release to send to the press. Nobody is out there from major news networks covering the activity. So it's all piecemeal.

As a result, the most compelling evidence for highlighting and continuing UFO study -- the sheer volume of sightings and experiences -- doesn't get publicized. The news media likes EXPLOSIONS! because they sell newspapers and get viewers. The UFO field just produces a kind of constant, low-level HUM. If you get my metaphor.

Originally posted by Eyesofbear
I guess my point is it wasn't written "tongue and cheek" or as a parody. There was discussion of new technology used in the investigation and advances that have been made.

I have to agree with you on this one - I was reluctant to even read it but glad I did. The discussion of new technology and the lack of 'snicker snicker' tone is what I noticed.

Thanks for bring this to our attention!

Always,
Shawnna

Originally posted by Shawnna
Thanks for bring this to our attention!

You are very welcome. I think the more legit press the UFO field gets, the more acceptance that occurs. Perhaps that is the plan? I doubt seriously they will just show up one day and walk down the street like it's not a big deal, but the gradual move to the mainstream will eventually lead to full disclosure. Just my humble opinion, of course!

[edit on 26-6-2006 by Eyesofbear]

Does anyone have pictures of the Whitehouse UFO fly by in the 50's? Has that ever been debunked?

They did try to debunk by using all the irrational explainations possible. From swamp gas to weather ballon and planet Venus, till the made it to erase from the "kolektiv memory". To this days nothing rational and logical has been said about the masive UFO sightings above the skies over Washington DC.

I think it was a reasonably polite status update on the phenomena. It was not written in a mocking tone. It included people from both sides of the debate, and so forth. This is CNN.com, so you can't expect a logical discussion. Logic and reason do not sell well to the mass market they are trying to reach. So they just pass around some anecdotes and quote a bunch of people at their most blurbable. That's CNN.com.

I think a fireside casual debate would be an interesting format for NBC Fantasy Prone, formerly known as the Sci Fi Channel.

None of this disguised Dateline schlock they are doing now. More of a conversational debate with a group of people, along the lines of the Moyer interview with Joseph Cambell.

Maybe the US's PBS could do it.

Get a few rational skeptical scientists, and a few of the more hard-edged UFO scientists to have a poliite discussion by the fire. Make it a 3 parter series of the conversation.

I think it would be worth it. Maybe Oprah or Bill Gates could fund it.
Oprah, honey, I loved the documentary about African American racial heritage you appeared in, it was Brill. Bill, baby, way to go with the school reform effort! But what you've learned in the past 5 years, my wife, a middle-school teacher in a poor school district, could have summarized for you in five munutes. Anyways, call me. **makes the phone signal with his hand** Ta ta!

[edit on 26-6-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

Very little that the press writes in terms of editorial view, ever strikes me as being very interesting or noteworthy. I guess I'm missing the significance of what makes this article so appealing ...?

Obviously CNN nor any other news media is going to publish stories and editorials stating that UFO's are real and tangible, at least not until a massive spacecraft hovers over the Whitehouse itself while some Greys transport down in a lightbeam and demand a press conference.

The article is predictably boring imo.

Originally posted by Tombstone
The article is predictably boring imo.

That is the point. It wasn't a parody, and it didn't make fun of UFO's or researchers. It was a matter-of-fact type article. If it was about any other topic, I would consider it boring, but the mere fact it was about UFO research and did not seek to discredit, that makes it newsworthy.