December 6, 2011 in Opinion
My work with Peace of Mind News requires me to pay attention to the media, both mainstream and otherwise.
While doing this, I’ve noticed the media follows a pattern when reporting stories.
Find a story, sensationalize it through defining opposite sides, and polarize those sides by making one side the good guy and one side the bad guy until the next story comes along.
The primary techniques for doing this are a headline, a sub-headline, and a tease. This sells papers, grabs viewers and listeners, and makes money, often at the expense of accurate reporting of the facts.
To be fair, the facts are reported accurately in the meat of the story. However, the juicy headlines, the headlines designed to get people’s attention, often raise a tantalizing idea that the article proves to be false.
If individuals don’t go any further than the headlines, they form opinions based on a headline that doesn’t have all the facts.
I watched this happen with Richard Hoagland over the past few months.
Of course, the asteroid didn’t hit the moon. Therefore, Hoagland was labeled a fraud.
This isn’t new.
Mainstream scientists and media have done this for years.
Never mind that Hoagland has more than forty years’ experience researching and documenting his discoveries. He started in media at an early age, so mainstream scientists believe he lacks credibility.
His background allows Hoagland to approach discoveries without the bias of most scientists. His willingness to ask questions about things that are just assumed to be true raises the ire of some people, especially when the evidence supports his point of view and is contrary to the mainstream agenda.
Therefore, the mainstream looks for a way to discredit him.
Actually, what Hoagland said about YU-55 is that it MIGHT hit the moon. This was the part of the story that was the most sensational. Therefore, the media, including this site, wrote about it.
When I had the opportunity to quiz Hoagland about it over Thanksgiving dinner, I learned what he really thought about both YU-55 and Elenin. I double-checked the sources media used to report on Hoagland’s statements and discovered he said the same thing then. However, reporters focused on the most sensational part. The part about “This is the end of the world, run for cover.”
Hoagland said that was a possibility. He advised people to pay attention. He did not say it was the end of the world.
He said these asteroids had an odd shape for natural objects. He pointed out that even NASA said that about YU-55. He wondered aloud if both Elenin and YU-55 were unnatural asteroids. He asked if it was possible that each was created by someone in another dimension. He offered the suggestion that it may have been humanity thousands of years ago or it may have someone on another planet.
This is more difficult to explain. It lacks the fifteen-second sensationalism of the end of the world. Therefore, it wasn’t reported with the same vigor by the mainstream.
Hoagland said other things too – things that will have to wait until a future article.