(Putting this here instead of in books because of the information summarized and its application to topics not discussed in the book.)
I've seen a bunch of references and recommendations for this book in UFO writing from the last decade. It's a book by an independent journalist, Terry Hansen, on media complicity in the UFO cover-up, written in 2000. It turns out that it's a great resource for information on censorship and propaganda in general. First of all, a bit of an overview of the book itself:
It starts out with a short introduction on the way news media has covered (or not covered) big UFO stories, e.g., the 1970s UFO/ICBM encounters. Hansen observes that there are two realities in media: the official reality, represented by major national news corporations (which reflect official government views), and folk reality, which is often represented in local or regional, 'small-town' reporting. UFO stories, in particular, often make it into the local press, but rarely if ever into the national press, and when it does, it's usually because the story has already become so large that they NEED to present it. And when they do, it's usually with spin. What's the reason?
Hansen poses a question, if UFOs are or have been seen by military and officialdom as a national-security issue, what would that imply about media coverage? From documentation, it's clear that it WAS seen as such, so the question is relevant. And 'national security' is so vague as to apply to military, defense, foreign-relations, economic, trade, scientific, technological, and balance-of-power objectives. And UFOs have definitely posed at least an apparent military threat; possible technological advances from study of them was conceivable; and as Carl Jung suggested, the idea of an alien intelligence would 'wrench the reins of power' from humans hands. More to the point, French astrophysicist Pierre Guerin said that UFOs frighten leaders because "they make it clear [that] world leaders are not in control of events." Later on, Hansen writes: "Remember that mass panic, political instability, and economic collapse are always possible should the full extent of the danger ever be revealed -- or even widely suspected. So an essential underlying concept of the deception campaign would have to be a consistently repeated denial that any problem exists."
Hansen then gives a very good history and summary of censorship and propaganda techniques and usage from the past century. Some highlights: WWI British intelligence techniques were used as a model by Nazi Goebbels. British techniques also largely inspired American ones. The war periods saw examples of overt censorship. In other words, people knew the truth, but were ordered to say nothing about it, legally. Media sources willingly complied with this censorship, as well as issuing official propaganda (directed both against enemies and citizens). After the war, censorship has been more covert, and Hansen describes the various methods by which this has been, and is, done. One example is censorship 'choke points', e.g., the wire services. Stories that are covered locally can be prevented from becoming widespread by blocking them at the news wire level. This is most often the case with UFO coverage.
Interesting is the relation of censorship and propaganda. As Hansen puts it, "Once an epistemological vacuum has been created through the use of censorship, the next step is to fill this conceptual void with false information, creating ... a 'pseudo-environment.'" Hansen traces the history of modern propaganda, focusing on Lippmann and Bernays. The rise of propaganda resembles a massive schizoidal declaration: "The Enlightenment view that people were essentially rational quickly gave way to a view of a public whose opinions and behavior can and should be engineered and manged by an intelligent elite. ... Bernays had utter contempt for the abilities of the average person to think about and understand the world. Consequently, he argued that the social terrain and mental scenery needed to be continuously monitored, modified, and adjusted by an elite class of opinion-molding tacticians who could channel public opinion in directions the elite desired." One way of doing this was "by staging seemingly spontaneous events that would induce the public to perceive the world in the ways desired." Then there were wholly fictitious means: atrocity stories.
An interesting example: the July 16, 1945 test of the first atomic bomb was explained away as an ammunition dump explosion.
Hansen summarizes the usual suspects, drawn from their documented historical use in other 'national-security' issues, as follows:
He then looks at each in turn, with examples of their use in relation to the UFO problem. In other words, he can't prove there has been a concerted censorship and propaganda campaign (using the media) in regard to UFOs, because such things are by necessity unprovable and secret, but isn't it curious that there's evidence of every trick in the book being used. (This analysis makes up the bulk of the book.) He ends with a discussion of new media, the the benefits and pitfalls they share, e.g., the Internet, Cable TV, and talk radio. As he mentions, by 1995 there was already evidence that the CIA was using the Internet for psychological warfare, and he brings up the resemblance of Internet PR campaigns to psy-ops, and rightly observes that there's no reason to think such things aren't already happening (i.e., paid Internet trolls).
It's really an invaluable source of examples of media plants, paid propagandists, and famous people, newspapers and news companies working for the government. It's a clear and concise overview of how the media really works, and just how entrenched it is in a system that caters to the national-security state.
However, what struck me was the resemblance and applicability of the above techniques to the whole comet problem. On Sott.net and here on the forum, we've seen examples of censorship-at-source, and a lot of the propaganda methods: cover stories ("ammunition dump explosion" ring any bells?), damage control, bogus science, etc. Using a similar starting point as Hansen, we could ask: If cometary bombardment poses a national-security problem, what might that entail? First of all, does it? Look at the similarity to UFOs:
If leaders are ultimately powerless, they must keep a lid on the phenomenon and threat in order to protect themselves (or "protect the public from themselves", in the schizoidal variation). They must present the evidence in such a way as to give the illusion that they are still in control of events. Even if they don't think the end is imminent, they must prevent any potential social reaction to such a threat, thus a conspiracy of silence is necessary. And when some scientists maybe realize that the threat IS imminent, the existing policy of secrecy and propaganda is already in place and can't be broken out of, and methods of censorship are applied to maintain the status quo.
I've seen a bunch of references and recommendations for this book in UFO writing from the last decade. It's a book by an independent journalist, Terry Hansen, on media complicity in the UFO cover-up, written in 2000. It turns out that it's a great resource for information on censorship and propaganda in general. First of all, a bit of an overview of the book itself:
It starts out with a short introduction on the way news media has covered (or not covered) big UFO stories, e.g., the 1970s UFO/ICBM encounters. Hansen observes that there are two realities in media: the official reality, represented by major national news corporations (which reflect official government views), and folk reality, which is often represented in local or regional, 'small-town' reporting. UFO stories, in particular, often make it into the local press, but rarely if ever into the national press, and when it does, it's usually because the story has already become so large that they NEED to present it. And when they do, it's usually with spin. What's the reason?
Hansen poses a question, if UFOs are or have been seen by military and officialdom as a national-security issue, what would that imply about media coverage? From documentation, it's clear that it WAS seen as such, so the question is relevant. And 'national security' is so vague as to apply to military, defense, foreign-relations, economic, trade, scientific, technological, and balance-of-power objectives. And UFOs have definitely posed at least an apparent military threat; possible technological advances from study of them was conceivable; and as Carl Jung suggested, the idea of an alien intelligence would 'wrench the reins of power' from humans hands. More to the point, French astrophysicist Pierre Guerin said that UFOs frighten leaders because "they make it clear [that] world leaders are not in control of events." Later on, Hansen writes: "Remember that mass panic, political instability, and economic collapse are always possible should the full extent of the danger ever be revealed -- or even widely suspected. So an essential underlying concept of the deception campaign would have to be a consistently repeated denial that any problem exists."
Hansen then gives a very good history and summary of censorship and propaganda techniques and usage from the past century. Some highlights: WWI British intelligence techniques were used as a model by Nazi Goebbels. British techniques also largely inspired American ones. The war periods saw examples of overt censorship. In other words, people knew the truth, but were ordered to say nothing about it, legally. Media sources willingly complied with this censorship, as well as issuing official propaganda (directed both against enemies and citizens). After the war, censorship has been more covert, and Hansen describes the various methods by which this has been, and is, done. One example is censorship 'choke points', e.g., the wire services. Stories that are covered locally can be prevented from becoming widespread by blocking them at the news wire level. This is most often the case with UFO coverage.
Interesting is the relation of censorship and propaganda. As Hansen puts it, "Once an epistemological vacuum has been created through the use of censorship, the next step is to fill this conceptual void with false information, creating ... a 'pseudo-environment.'" Hansen traces the history of modern propaganda, focusing on Lippmann and Bernays. The rise of propaganda resembles a massive schizoidal declaration: "The Enlightenment view that people were essentially rational quickly gave way to a view of a public whose opinions and behavior can and should be engineered and manged by an intelligent elite. ... Bernays had utter contempt for the abilities of the average person to think about and understand the world. Consequently, he argued that the social terrain and mental scenery needed to be continuously monitored, modified, and adjusted by an elite class of opinion-molding tacticians who could channel public opinion in directions the elite desired." One way of doing this was "by staging seemingly spontaneous events that would induce the public to perceive the world in the ways desired." Then there were wholly fictitious means: atrocity stories.
An interesting example: the July 16, 1945 test of the first atomic bomb was explained away as an ammunition dump explosion.
Hansen summarizes the usual suspects, drawn from their documented historical use in other 'national-security' issues, as follows:
He then looks at each in turn, with examples of their use in relation to the UFO problem. In other words, he can't prove there has been a concerted censorship and propaganda campaign (using the media) in regard to UFOs, because such things are by necessity unprovable and secret, but isn't it curious that there's evidence of every trick in the book being used. (This analysis makes up the bulk of the book.) He ends with a discussion of new media, the the benefits and pitfalls they share, e.g., the Internet, Cable TV, and talk radio. As he mentions, by 1995 there was already evidence that the CIA was using the Internet for psychological warfare, and he brings up the resemblance of Internet PR campaigns to psy-ops, and rightly observes that there's no reason to think such things aren't already happening (i.e., paid Internet trolls).
It's really an invaluable source of examples of media plants, paid propagandists, and famous people, newspapers and news companies working for the government. It's a clear and concise overview of how the media really works, and just how entrenched it is in a system that caters to the national-security state.
However, what struck me was the resemblance and applicability of the above techniques to the whole comet problem. On Sott.net and here on the forum, we've seen examples of censorship-at-source, and a lot of the propaganda methods: cover stories ("ammunition dump explosion" ring any bells?), damage control, bogus science, etc. Using a similar starting point as Hansen, we could ask: If cometary bombardment poses a national-security problem, what might that entail? First of all, does it? Look at the similarity to UFOs:
If leaders are ultimately powerless, they must keep a lid on the phenomenon and threat in order to protect themselves (or "protect the public from themselves", in the schizoidal variation). They must present the evidence in such a way as to give the illusion that they are still in control of events. Even if they don't think the end is imminent, they must prevent any potential social reaction to such a threat, thus a conspiracy of silence is necessary. And when some scientists maybe realize that the threat IS imminent, the existing policy of secrecy and propaganda is already in place and can't be broken out of, and methods of censorship are applied to maintain the status quo.
