UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Sep > Sep 9

Re: 'All The News That's Fit To Print'

From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 21:44:53 +0100
Archived: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 08:00:48 -0400
Subject: Re: 'All The News That's Fit To Print'


>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 20:08:38 EDT
>Subject: Re: 'All The News That's Fit To Print'

>>From: Greg Sandow <greg.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:03:31 -0400
>>Subject: 'All The News That's Fit To Print' [was: New Revelations...]

>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 16:39:06 EDT
>>>Subject: Re: New Revelations On The Origins Of MJ-12

><snip>

>>>You've got to be kidding? Stringfield? Why in hell wouldn't
>>>genuine leakers (there is no wrongdoing involved so no "whistle-
>>>blowing") go to the NY Times?? The fact they don't tells you
>>>they aren't genuine leakers, but plants, agents provocateur,
>>>agents peddling disinformation.

><snip>

>>Brad,

>>I agree with everything else you said in this post,

>So far so good. :)

>>but about
>>the NY Times - I don't think genuine UFO leakers (if any exist)
>>would be received very well there. I say this after many years'
>>experience as a journalist. High-level journalists generally
>>believe that UFOs are crackpot stuff. If a leaker approached one
>>of the Times' investigative reporters, or military reporters, or
>>science reporters, or Washington reporters, I think they'd get
>>blown off. And even if the reporter was impressed, convincing
>>the editors to let the reporter work on the story would be very
>>hard to do.

>In subsequent posts here I pointed out that Doty for one told
>Linda Howe he was coming to her instead of the NY Times because
>she is "much easier to control" - this coming from a
>disinformation agent only pretending to be a leaker. At least
>he recognized the difference between reputable media with clout
>that a legitimate leaker should turn to, and a marginalized,
>fringe media outlet.

>My point was not that the NY Times was the only reputable outlet
>a genuine leaker should go to. But the NY Times did in fact
>cover the MJ-12 document controversy quite fairly and
>prominently.

But your point, Brad, valid as it may be, is not particularly
germane to the issue under discussion from the start: that of to
whom do you go if you want to release information that will
break a major UFO story like MJ-12.

Organs like the NY Times are happy to cover such stories
(especially during the silly season while news is slow and the
Perseids neatly explain everything) when they can write about
the controversy surrounding them rather than critically
examining the merits of the data that give rise to that
controversy.

The distinction between covering a story and breaking it, or at
least running as an 'early adopter', is critical here.


--
Gerald O'Connell



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ 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