UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Mar > Mar 14

Biased Documentaries By The Media

From: Dennis Balthaser <truthskr.nul>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:43:26 -0600
Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:46:29 -0400
Subject: Biased Documentaries By The Media

Searching For The Truth

(Always Telling the Truth Means Never Having to Remember Anything)

Biased Documentaries By The Media


Over the years I have enjoyed having the opportunity to share my
UFO research with the public through various venues, such as
being involved with many film documentary productions, various
TV and radio interviews, writing editorials and doing lectures.

Doing lectures, writing editorials and live radio interviews
rank as some of my favorites, because the information being
presented can be presented in a manner that doesn't require
editing in most cases, since it's what I like to call "off the
cuff" and live. Radio interviews in particular fall in to this
category. Agreed there may be some lively discussion from those
that don't agree with my comments during a live radio broadcast
but the results of those discussions can usually be quickly
resolved. Editorials sometimes initiate responses in both
agreement and disagreement, but usually are also resolvable
through communication and correspondence. The best part about
doing lectures for me has always been the question and answer
session following the lecture, wherein I can judge my lecture by
the questions that are asked and the dialog that takes place
between the audience and myself. Television interviews
particularly if for a news service, can go either way. If it's a
live television broadcast, editing will not be needed and the
information as presented is "out there" subject to review later
if desired.

Television documentaries being filmed for airing at a later date
do not fall into the above categories and have become a real
problem over the years due to the editing that takes place after
the filming is complete, with no in-put for the final version
from those that have been interviewed. This is happening much
too frequently. I guess one could assume that any coverage is
good, but that is not the case in many documentaries I've been
involved with. Perhaps I don't know enough about TV show ratings
and bottom line profits to fully understand why this is
happening all too often. There appears to be an agenda and
motive to deliberately produce shows that are biased, on the
edge of propaganda and misinformation, for a reason other than
disclosing the truth or at least showing respect for those of us
that have dedicated our lives and financial resources to finding
that truth. Debunkers and critics are an essential part of this
research to help us all find the answers, unfortunately the
debunkers very seldom come up with new information and many
times are given credit in these documentaries for having all the
answers. The people responsible for editing documentaries as
well as the film crews themselves, many times have no knowledge
of the information their preparing for consumption by the
general public. They haven't done their homework and lead you to
believe that they're after the facts and the truth only to find
out the story line and conclusion when a show is aired is far
from either. The multi-million dollar networks want our years of
research for free, consuming many hours of our time to
misrepresent us in their final product. That has to stop. I can
honestly say that of the several hundred interviews I have done
over the years, only a handful were factual and presented the
information in a balanced way that the public deserves.

The ABC-TV special with Peter Jennings in 2005 was a good
example. The show was heavily promoted as being the truth, which
it was for the first few minutes and then went "south" like many
other shows and documentaries have, with assumptions and claims
that were totally false, allowing too much air time for the
debunkers which didn't permit the information to be shown in a
fair and balanced manner.

Sometimes you expect these type results from certain national
media networks, because you know their track record from
previous documentaries they produced. There are other networks
that you expect a more balanced view from, and those can
disappoint you also as the National Geographic channel did
recently in a show about "The Real Roswell", which first aired
in January 2007.

Last summer I filmed with them here in Roswell for about 6 hours
and not once during that time was I told by the film crew that
the National Geographic special would obviously have an agenda
that would be extremely biased by the time the one hour show
ended after the editing was completed. I was also contacted
several times by email and telephone requesting additional
factual information about the Roswell Incident while the
documentary was being prepared. I had a lot of airtime on the
show and those that responded to me after viewing the show
indicated that I came across honestly and sincerely in my
comments that were used. I was thankful for that, but very
disappointed with the overall show and factual information
unfairly presented.

As examples, at one point in the show they referred to General
Roger Ramey, the head of 8th Air Force in Ft Worth as the base
commander at Roswell Army Airfield in 1947, when in fact the
base commander was Col Blanchard. The Mogul balloon theory,
particularly Flight 4, which researcher David Rudiak has proven
could not have possibly landed on the ranch was the final word
for the documentary, totally ignoring the fact that Russia did
no nuclear testing until 1949 (2 years after the Roswell
Incident), which was what the Mogul balloon was supposed to
detect from high altitude. Major Jesse Marcel's recollection of
the event was linked to Sci-Fi books and movies, not based on
his work as the top Intelligence Officer in the military in
1947. Finally most of the witnesses' testimony shown was taken
completely out of context.

The National Geographic channel in the preparation of this
documentary did obviously very little homework. Some of the
witnesses like Walter Haut, Frank Joyce, George Newling, Major
Marcel and his son Jesse Marcel Jr., deserved better than
National Geographic afforded them. The same is true for
researchers Stanton Friedman, Don Schmitt and myself who gave
freely and openly to what we thought would be a non-biased
documentary about Roswell, only to be disappointed again.

The debunkers on the show added nothing new and in fact in the
case of Michael Shermer, his responses are now predictable,
since it's always the same ---that it's all a myth. Perhaps he's
the myth with help from the National Geographic channel and
other UFO documentary producers. The narrator in fact ended the
show with the statement that, "Science now sees Roswell as
little more than myth making".

Of course no Roswell documentary would be complete without the
comments from Dr. Seth Shostak of SETI, who continues to live in
the stone age hoping to get a "radio signal" from out there, and
B.D Glidenberg, both of whom I would question as to their
credentials on actually doing research on the subject of UFOs.

I suggest in the future, documentary film producers omit the
words like the "Real" Roswell or the "Truth" about Roswell,
unless they intend to present it as real or true.

National Geographic - your credibility is at stake and you have
a lot of room for improvement. You owe it to your audience to be
fair and unbiased.

Dennis G. Balthaser

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com