The way Reporters present UFO Stories

The subliminal & overbearing tactics to infer it as fiction

* They smile
* They lift the volume of their voice
* They replace the word "UFO" with "Flying Saucer"
* They replace the word "alien" or "extraterrestrial" with the phrase "little green men"
* They craft the extraordinary by nature occurrence into terms that almost bias the viewers opinion of it before it's reported
* Don't forget that little joke they work in with the co-reporter, followed by a laugh or downward glancing smile.
* They craft the report so it ends open ended despite a story that may have conclusion or heaven forbid, physical trace evidence to back up the claim.

If anyone else knows what I'm talking about after seeing these happenings themselves, feel free to expand on these points.

Final note: It's my instinct that the individual reporters aren't the cause of these things, but the network "party line" that makes them tow that view on air.

And they often play the X-Files music in the background.

You are absolutely right. I've always found that really anoying. There is a show on National Geographic Channel: Is it Real?, that I quit watching because the sarcasm in the voice of the narrator. Why bother making a show just for it to be a mockery.

I agree, I hate that show.

It subliminally/and not so subliminally mocks whatever the topic of the show is about.

I fully agree. It pisses me off to no end. My only satiation comes from watching sharp minded guys (and gals) along the lines of Stephen Bassett go head to head and toe to toe with even the most elite reporters out there. I swear that guy can put any reporter back in their tracks in no time flat. The guy knows his facts and hits extremely hard - often making the reporters feel like idiots.

It's just the way reporters deliver news stories which are considered ridiculous by the general public, which is really unfair because I dont think there's anything ridiculous about the UFO phenomenon.

They're talking heads.
Most of them don't even write their own copy, they just read it off the teleprompter.
The real reporters work on newspapers, not in television.
It's much harder to be snide in print.
I was a newspaper reporter for 12 years. In that time, I think I wrote perhaps three or four reports of unknown flying objects. I presented what was seen and nothing more. Had I speculated or got cute with the story, my editor would have reminded me about the obligation of objectivity.
But then, I left journalism in 1997 and never looked back. Even then it was changing for the worse. Today, I read things that would enrage any editor I ever worked under.

Another thing to consider about the media is how they do eyewitness and interview reporting as well. At least to me it seems that media tends to pick the crackpot of a location. They tend to pick the type of person that would spend ten minutes describing the sound of the tornado, rather than the horrific impact it had on the surrounding area. Except for political interviews and big local current events, I tend to see the media interview a lot less desirable people speaking on a given subject. By less desirable I mean the type of person who is not objective or overly informed on the given subject. This even more true when it comes to reporting credible UFO sightings. If the media were to have more informed so called experts or informed skeptics on the news it would renew the public interest in the UFO phenomena. Then perhaps some real investigating outside of government and media control would occur and that doesn't go well for news stations trying to sell commercial spots. And thats what is all about, commercials when it comes to TV, ratings determine the type of news that is shown to the viewer.

But isn't that true of a lot of programmes that promote ufology. They seem to add a bit of 'spooky' music to give mundane clips a sinister feel.

im certain that it is an over all effort to keep the subject the butt of the less informed jokes. I find that they do seek out the one freak wearing the tinfoil hat and ignore the twenty year veteran of the highway patrol who is an actual trained observer.

Indeed. It's gotten to the point where when I meet someone who is choosing journalism as a career the first thing I think to myself is "great - another brainless puppet".

I've noticed this too... they also seem to do this with a lot of other things that are put under the stigma of conspiracy theories and such. In short, the news is CRAP, specific words and intonations greatly affect perception and even memories, making interviews hard to keep objective as well.

I've pretty much boycotted CNN because of this, just look at a few analyses of their tactics and you'll never be able to watch that network without laughing your ass off.

Framing the Debate

I agree. They forget ALOT of people take the UFO phenomenon seriously and find it no laughing matter.

There's alot of evidence accumulating ,we just haven't got that cherry on top of the cake yet. (officially anyways)

lets face it todays reporters aren't a threat to win pulitzers anytime soon, they have mid to none existent literary talent so what ever thney report on has to be simple or in the simple terms. A topic like this would require them to exercise a little brain power, and given how little they obviously have i can see their reluctance to frit any away on a topic that doesn't include a scandal or a social miscue of the famous. Really, until thye catch ET giving bush a bj it won't be news.

Well, as a person with a degree in journalism and who actually worked as a newspaper reporter for many years, let me do what reporters are supposed to do -- bring a bit of balance to the debate.

First of all, I think most of what is being talked abut here is TV journalism, which tends to be much more entertainment oriented and is veering ever closer to tabloid style presentations.

But I think if you would look at how the PRINT media presents UFO stories, such as the New York Times, you'd see a much more serious approach.

As a reporter, I covered a number of UFO stories -- every reporter does eventually because there are so many reports. In general, I would say my editors allowed me to cover the story pretty much like any other story. We just reported the facts, and let the readers decide.

But not all of the best stories can make it to print for one serious reason -- the sources will not let us use their names in the story.

For example, a local cop once called me after he and his partner chased an "an orange globe" around Minnesota one night in their squad car -- they eventually lost sight of it.

But the next day, a woman from the area they were in came into the police station and said an "orange globe" had been flying around her farm -- she was watching it from her house window and was scared -- then, suddenly, all her animals somehow escaped from her barn -- she had a some cows, goats, etc.

She was scared to go out to try to round them back up -- then she turned around and she had these big french doors that were all window, if you know what I mean, and she saw a group of "little alien men" run across her porch, and she got a vey good look at them -- it wasn't just some of her goats.

She was scared sh***tless and waited out the night and went to the cops in the morning. The first guy she talked to happened to be one of the officers that had seen the orange globe independently of her the night before, so he knew she must have been telling the truth.

Anyway, the cops and the woman were eager to talk to me, and have me write a story about it -- but in the end the story never ran because none would give their names for the story. My editor said the story was "too sensational" without someone going on the record.

So here you have an example of the special challenges reporters face when covering stories like these. It's gets very frustrating.

I later published the story anyway in my own syndicated column, and got lots of letters from readers calling me a liar, and saying "how convenient" it was that I named no real names for the story.

I have the story on my blog, and I'll provide a link if anyone wants to see it.

But I think these people were telling the truth about what they saw and experienced. The cops saw the globe independently of the woman, and so on.

Wow, IG that's an amazing story. That clarifies the situation you guys are in somewhat. Thank's for sharing.

I agree. That's very enlightening, and does provide hope. Thanks for sharing the experience.

EXACTLY

Yup, this is the perfect example of what you are ponting out: (was going to post here the link of the video)

It was 2 minutes of the Red Eye Gang show on fox news. It was a show in march or around of this year, in which they made fun of ufo believers, calling them drug addicts and making fun of the subject. I think the video was deleted because it made them look VERY BAD and very biased and stupid.

Too bad because this was the perfect example of what you talked about.

I once saw the news report on a Bigfoot video and as the woman described and she giggled and said "Sorry I'm just trying to say this with a straight face" I mean COME ON.

yeah its funny because most TV reporters don't know much more than what they have seen themselves. I don;t get the impression that there is a lot of extracuricular reading going on.

I found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C2IIhZiDAI

The previous video was deleted, but kept searching and found this one, which is the same.

What do you guys think about it?. How they try to "ridicule" the UFO subject and calling "drug users" to those who believe and have seen UFOs.

What do you people think?

That reminds me of the Discovery Channel show "The Most Strange UFO Stories". In that show they make fun of the subject. Its insulting.

Notice how the narrator uses sarcasm and the show NEVER investigates what they are presenting. They only limit themselves on interviewing crazy people with crazy stories that even a 5 year old kid wouldnt believe.

Of course, THEY NEVER interview people like Stanton Friedman or retired high ranking military people with real credibility.

The point of that show is to make fun of the UFO subject by making the masses believe the UFO subject is for crazy people.

I like how they generalize about Canadians and Canada in general, I think if your gonna go on television you should at least try and learn just a little bit more about the subjects gthey will be discussing. Yeah its a big fat joke, I wonder how bad they'll be laughing when it all goes down?