Unpacking the New York Times' Recent UFO Coverage and Its Implications
Written on
The New York Times recently published an article by national security journalist Julian E. Barnes that aimed to dismiss any extraterrestrial interpretations of the UFOs that have preoccupied Pentagon officials in recent years.
The article’s content, along with its timing—just days before Congress is set to release its second annual public report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)—raises numerous questions. The lack of historical and political context is glaring, making it an easy target for critique.
Spanning just over 1,300 words, the piece prompts speculation about whether the Times, which initially broke significant UFO-related stories in December 2017, is retreating from its previous investigative stance. This comes at a time when evidence of intense debate within the Pentagon and the intelligence community about what information should be shared regarding UFOs is growing.
The crux of the Times article can be summarized as follows:
Government officials assert that most UFO sightings can ultimately be explained as either human-made objects or natural occurrences.
This assertion is hardly groundbreaking; it is a viewpoint widely accepted and reiterated by credible ufologists and often appears in mainstream media reports about UFOs. Even the initial 2017 Times article included a skeptic highlighting this point—an understanding that is universally acknowledged.
However, the real issue at hand is not merely the claim itself. To lend credibility to his findings, Barnes mentions that his article was:
> “...based on interviews with American officials familiar with the findings of the Pentagon and intelligence agencies’ examination of the incidents. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified work.”
While the Times sometimes utilizes anonymous sources, the rationale behind doing so in this case is unclear, especially given the lack of new information aside from the identification of some UAPs as mere foreign surveillance or debris.
Barnes quotes only one named source: Pentagon spokesperson Sue Gough, raising questions about the depth of sourcing in a story that lacks significant revelations. This reliance on a government representative for critical journalism on a controversial issue is perplexing.
Reactions to the Article
Unsurprisingly, the Times' story ignited a stir within the #UFOTwitter community, with many dismissing it as unworthy of serious consideration. Some insightful critiques emerged in various social media threads. Politico reporter Bryan Bender, known for his balanced perspective, expressed disappointment over the reliance on a singular named source.
Eric Weinstein, a public intellectual who has evolved from skepticism to advocacy for UFO disclosure, took the opportunity to criticize the Pentagon for its inconsistent messaging.
UFO disclosure advocate Steve Bassett urged Barnes to delve deeper into the subject, echoing sentiments from many in the ufology community who anticipate further Congressional hearings soon.
Ryan Graves, a U.S. Navy pilot who has publicly discussed UFO encounters, shared sentiments that resonated with the article's underlying themes without directly referencing it.
Conversely, some skeptics and critics, who have long warned UFO enthusiasts about confirmation bias, congratulated the media and Pentagon for what they perceive as a newfound validation of their views.
If the Times article has a significant shortcoming, it is the glaring omission of historical and political context, which is particularly evident to those familiar with ufology. The absence of this context risks misleading the general public, potentially aligning with the intentions of the officials quoted.
Barnes never specifies which UFO reports officials are referencing. Despite multiple interviews, it remains vague which timeframe and data set are being discussed when officials conclude that many UAPs are attributed to Chinese surveillance or other mundane explanations.
Additionally, it is important to note the timing of the article, which came shortly after a notable UFO incident involving U.S. commercial pilots. A segment on NBC’s The Today Show featured a pilot expressing frustration over the ongoing UFO narrative, suggesting a wave of new evidence may soon emerge.
Barnes also overlooked a crucial development in ufology this year: legislative measures aimed at dismantling the Pentagon's secrecy surrounding UFOs. Key highlights include a government-wide search for all Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) related to UAPs and an extensive survey by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding the involvement of U.S. intelligence agencies in UFO research since 1947.
This year marks a renewed Congressional interest in uncovering details surrounding the alleged Roswell incident, raising questions about why Congress would pursue this if they are already briefed on UAPs.
The crux of the matter is that if Barnes has access to credible Pentagon sources willing to discuss classified information, are they indicating a belief in or suspicion of non-human intelligence? If such voices exist, why aren’t they being included in his reporting? Conversely, if they’re not accessible, why isn’t he making an effort to find them?
The New York Times has previously brought significant attention to this subject, prompting questions about its current editorial direction. What information are they withholding? What permissions are they awaiting? How long will they allow filmmakers, podcasters, and independent researchers to outpace them in reporting on UFOs? The existence of unexplained aerial phenomena is undeniable, and it is time for mainstream media to report the truth.
> Trail of the Saucers is published by Stellar Productions and Bryce Zabel, co-host of the popular podcast Need to Know with Coulthart and Zabel.