The more you dig into the New York Times recent coverage of reports of alien contact, the worse it looks.
Back in 2019, veteran journalist Keith Kloor had an excellent post on our seventy-six year fascination with UFOs. Given recent events, this section is particularly relevant.
Today,
a new set of crusading actors are reviving a UFO narrative with all the
trappings of America’s first round of extraterrestrial enchantment. On
December 16, 2017, Politico, the New York Times, and the Washington Post
published near simultaneous stories about an obscure $22 million
Pentagon project that officially existed between 2008 and 2012.
All
three outlets had essentially the same story: The Pentagon program was
created at the behest of former Democratic Senator Harry Reid in 2008
and was run jointly for a time with Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas,
whose owner, Robert Bigelow, has long been on the hunt for extraterrestrials and poltergeists.
Politico and the Washington Post
treated the Pentagon program as it appeared to be: A pet project of a
senator that didn’t amount to much — other than “reams of paperwork” —
and did not provide evidence that alien spaceships were buzzing our
skies. Both stories had well-placed sources in the intelligence
community that were skeptical of the program’s purpose and deliverables.
Absent any salacious details, neither story got wider pickup.
The New York Times, however, played up dubious tidbits that the Washington Post or Politico
either didn’t find credible or simply didn’t know about — namely that
the program had found “metal alloys and other materials… recovered from
unidentified aerial phenomena,” that got stored in a Bigelow Aerospace
warehouse. There is no indication in the Times story that any of these “materials” were seen firsthand by its reporters.
The Times
also had something its competitors apparently didn’t: Grainy footage of
two Navy F/A-18 fighter jets in 2004 tracking an apparent unknown
object “traveling at high speed and rotating” off the coast of San
Diego. The 45-second video and the Times front page article went viral.
But there’s more to the Times story that should’ve given readers pause.
One
of the authors of the story was Leslie Kean, a journalist with a
long-standing interest in UFOs and the paranormal, who published a book in 2010 titled, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record. At
the time, activists in the UFO community were coalescing around the
goal of obtaining official “disclosure” about extraterrestrial
sightings. This entailed finding current military
and aviation whistleblowers to come forward and share the secrets they
knew about UFOs — or in the case of Kean’s book, tell of the strange
flying objects they had seen or learned about in the course of their
jobs. In numerous articles in the Huffington Post
over the past decade, Kean has discussed her participation in several
nonprofit groups involved in UFOs and the “disclosure” movement.
...The Times, encouraged by Kean,
took a serious look at Elizondo and his claims. Other prominent
outlets, it turned out, were doing so, too. Two months later, the Times, Politico, and Washington Post stories hit. But it was the Times piece that reverberated across the media landscape.
Around the same time, Kloor also wrote this critical examination of key NYT source Luis Elizondo for the Intercept.
I mentioned Kari DeLonge’s response — about Elizondo having taken
over AATIP and run it “out of the Office for the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) under the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI)” — to
Sherwood, the Pentagon spokesperson who had told me unequivocally that
Elizondo “had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while
he worked in OUSDI.”
I then asked Sherwood how he knew that Elizondo hadn’t worked for
AATIP during his time with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence, where he was based from 2008 until his retirement in
2017. Sherwood said he’d spoken with OUSDI leadership, including
individuals who are “still there” from the time when Elizondo started
working in the office.
Maybe Elizondo was running AATIP under the purview of another office
or agency within the Department of Defense? Sherwood acknowledged that
Elizondo “worked for other organizations in DoD.” But that, too, would
have contradicted Kari DeLonge’s statement to Greenewald.
Kari DeLonge did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
It bears noting that, although Elizondo has made a point of providing
various documents to reporters (including me) to establish his bona
fides, he does not appear to have supplied any materials that validate
his connection to the government UFO program he insists he led. No
memorandums, no emails discussing deliverables or findings, and no
paperwork addressed to or from him that connects him to AATIP.
The documents he has provided include recent annual Defense
Department performance evaluations and his October 4, 2017 resignation
letter to then-Defense Secretary James Mattis, which bears the apparent
seal of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense. In the letter,
Elizondo alludes to internal opposition at the Pentagon to investigate
UFOs that he wrote had menaced Navy Pilots and posed an “existential
threat to our national security.” He was leaving, he strongly implied in
his letter, because the Pentagon wasn’t taking that threat seriously.
The letter does not mention AATIP or Elizondo’s role as its director.
...
In 2017, when Elizondo outed himself to the Times, he was portrayed as a reluctant whistleblower and a little paranoid. The three reporters who shared bylines on the story, including freelancer Leslie Kean (who wrote in 2016 that she was “privileged to welcome”
Chris Mellon into the UFO organization to which she
belonged) met Elizondo in a “nondescript Washington hotel where he sat
with his back to the wall, keeping an eye on the door.”
On the Times’s podcast, “The Daily,”
[Complete with spooky music -- MP] Helene Cooper, the newspaper’s Pentagon correspondent, described
Elizondo as a “spooky, secretive guy” but added that he was “completely
credible.” He showed her documents, pictures, and military videos of
potential UFOs, which appeared fantastic to her, but also persuasive. “I
did believe him,” Cooper said on the podcast. “It seemed completely
credible to me in the moment.”
Later on, after she left the hotel room, Cooper acknowledged that
doubts crept in. In the end, though, she decided that what mattered most
was whether the Pentagon’s UFO program was real. That, she said, was
the focus of the story.
Except that really wasn't the focus of the story. Here's Jeff Wise writing for New York Magazine in 2017.
The fact that the program really existed was the part that the Times
touted as its big get, but that wasn’t what set the internet on fire.
What got people excited was the implication that the program had
collected evidence of encounters with unidentified flying objects. In
reporting this part of the story, reporters Helene Cooper, Ralph
Blumenthal, and Leslie Kean were much less careful about maintaining a
critical eye. “The program produced documents that describe sightings of
aircraft that seemed to move at very high velocities with no visible
signs of propulsion, or that hovered with no apparent means of lift,”
the article asserted, later adding: “The company modified buildings in
Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr.
Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from
unidentified aerial phenomena. In addition, researchers also studied
people who said that they had experienced physical effects from
encounters with the objects and examined them for physiological
changes.”
The
straightforward presentation of these assertions implies that the
authors believe them to be true. But they beg for elaboration. Were the
produced documents credible? In what way were the buildings modified,
and why was it necessary to modify them in order to store this material?
What does it mean for an object to be associated with a phenomenon?
What were the claimed physical effects, and were any physiological
changes found?
...
In a follow-up story for the Times Insider about how the story came to be, reporter Ralph Blumenthal makes it sound like the Times
scored an exclusive by getting Elizondo to open up to them, writing
that he and two colleagues “met Mr. Elizondo in a nondescript Washington
hotel where he sat with his back to the wall, keeping an eye on the
door.” The implication is that Elizondo feared the repercussions of
leaking sensitive information for the first time.
In fact, when Elizondo spoke to the Times he had left government and was promoting the launch of a new venture called To the Stars … Academy of Arts & Science, a website that is trying to crowdsource donations to study paranormal phenomena. Before the Times told his story, To the Stars’ main shareholder, former Blink-182 guitarist Tom DeLonge, had previously promoted the venture on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast.
What left out of the NYT narrative was, while less incredible, arguably more interesting, from the through the looking glass world of Bigelow and the Skinwalker Ranch to the actual science and engineering that offered plausible explanations for that "footage of unidentified flying objects that couldn’t be explained." (Worth noting that Scientific American never jumped on this bandwagon,)
The New York Times had plenty of critics telling them they were at risk of serious reputational damage, which might have helped if the paper were capable of listening to critics.
