I decided to respond to Cherlyn Gardner Strong‘s recent article about J. Allen Hynek relocating to Tucson [Arizona, USA] to live because he found the attitude to the UFO phenomenon there very open. This was my response:
After reading your post I seriously thought of ‘transplanting’ myself in Tucson, just to be in ‘good company’ but then had second thoughts.
I realized that it shouldn’t matter where one finds oneself in this amazing world we live in, the chances of someone, if not yourself, seeing ‘high strangeness’ or something amazing in the area where you live are pretty good these days, if you’re vigilant and observant.
If one is privileged to witness an amazing event one should find the moral courage to speak up about it and not feel intimidated by an uninformed attitude to UFO matters. The UFO ‘community’ might not possess solid boundaries but it sure is inhibited [I meant to say ‘inhabited’ haha] by many great and wonderful people.
I sometimes get annoyed at the ‘anonymous’ for being too scared to be identified with the UFO issue even though they may contribute to it some how, and get really angry at those with ‘status’ who tend to dominate the discourse on UFOs, a highly important issue. The UFO phenomenon belongs to [the] world, not to an institution.
[I] live in Australia and wish I could say the same that has been said of the good people of Tucson. Australians can be open-minded and sometimes tolerant of those who see things and talk about it, but don’t mention UFOs and the United States in same sentences, haha.
I have found the Australian Media to
not [I didn’t mean to say ‘not’] be unreceptive and [a] little intolerant of anything to do UFOs. They will be polite to your face but criticize you behind your back. I dare the Australian Media to prove me wrong, of course.
While I agree with the concept ‘live and let live,’ the ‘mindset’ of institutes Hynek referred to can be a problem, especially for those trying to either educate the general public on the phenomenon or seriously try to investigate it.
It is true that people misidentify objects flying in the sky – day or not – but not always. Video technology these days tends to make it harder to misidentify objects, I think, unless of course the recording is of a poor quality which many are. It is the nature of the phenomenon rather than the technology. UFOs often do not remain stationary long enough for it to be focused on with any clarity. Sometimes it is. While the majority of witnesses to events of ‘high strangeness’ tend to be ordinary people there are those who aren’t ordinary in the true sense of the word, e.g. military and police personnel, scientists and politicians, and others with greater-valued social status. Yet the media tends to focus on the sightings and the experiences of ordinary people when it comes to UFO sightings rather than the afore-mentioned. Why is that?
There are, I think, at least three main reasons why the media tend to ignore the UFO phenomenon. One reason why the media behaves the way it does is because UFO sightings do not possess ‘news-worthiness,’ unless they possess it in great amounts – an old granny on her porch at night sees coloured lights in the evening sky isn’t dramatic enough; another reason for the behaviour is that media managers tend to restrict what can be aired or written about in the various types of media, e.g. newspapers, TV, etc; the third reason for the lack of media coverage of the UFO phenomenon is money. The bottom line for media managers is whether or not the material presented in the news will generate dollars, if it is thought that an item will not generate, in the end, money then it is deemed to be not news-worthy.
If that causes some to think that a conspiracy is under way then that is probably an extreme response. I do not think there is a deliberate, wilful conspiracy under way to deny media outlets (TV, newspapers, etc) regular coverage of the UFO phenomenon. It is news-worthiness and money that tends to determine the amount and quality of coverage. If there is no ‘money’ in it for media managers, then they will ignore it.
Of course, it is possible that in a country like the US media managers are being told to by-pass the issue.