Delving into controversial topics and related demographics has challenges that come with the territory. If
one is inclined to research and write on matters and controversies
typically receiving attention within ufology circles, various questions of ethics and integrity are destined to arise.
What
responsibilities do writer/researchers have to individuals who become
the subjects of their articles and blog posts? How might we assess if
writers are dealing responsibly with their chosen subject matter?
What challenges should writers expect to encounter when addressing
such topics as the intelligence community, alleged alien abduction
and claims of mind control?
I
emailed writer/researchers Sharon Weinberger, Nigel Watson and Mark
Pilkington, requesting permission to pose such questions. Each
graciously agreed to share some experience and insight, and their time and attention is greatly appreciated. Comments provided by Sharon Weinberger and Nigel Watson are offered below, and statements from Mark Pilkington will be published in part two of this post.
Sharon
Weinberger
Sharon Weinberger is an award-winning journalist and a former defense analyst. Her impressive resume includes an M.A. in Russian and East European Studies from Yale University. Her writing on such topics as national security and military technology has been published in Wired, Slate, Discover and Aviation Week & Space Technology, among other outlets. She authored Imaginary Weapons: A Journey Through the Pentagon's Scientific Underworld, a 2006 book documenting how a fringe weapons project bordering on charlatanism was repeatedly funded while producing no independently verifiable data. Weinberger took on the controversial subject of mind control in her 2007 Washington Post Magazine article, Mind Games, which provided readers insight into the lives of self-described targeted individuals and contained an intriguing interview with non-lethal weapons expert Colonel John Alexander. She is currently composing a history of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, referred to in some circles as the mad science division.
Sharon Weinberger is an award-winning journalist and a former defense analyst. Her impressive resume includes an M.A. in Russian and East European Studies from Yale University. Her writing on such topics as national security and military technology has been published in Wired, Slate, Discover and Aviation Week & Space Technology, among other outlets. She authored Imaginary Weapons: A Journey Through the Pentagon's Scientific Underworld, a 2006 book documenting how a fringe weapons project bordering on charlatanism was repeatedly funded while producing no independently verifiable data. Weinberger took on the controversial subject of mind control in her 2007 Washington Post Magazine article, Mind Games, which provided readers insight into the lives of self-described targeted individuals and contained an intriguing interview with non-lethal weapons expert Colonel John Alexander. She is currently composing a history of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, referred to in some circles as the mad science division.
"I think writers and researchers have the same responsibilities as anyone in society: to treat all people
with honesty and respect."
with honesty and respect."
“Obviously,
I do think there is something useful in exploring controversial or
extreme beliefs,” Weinberger recently told The UFO Trail,
“not just for the people who hold them, but for the people who
don't share those beliefs. But how can this exploration be done
responsibly? I think writers and researchers have the same
responsibilities as anyone in society: to treat all people with
honesty and respect. The real question is how does this translate
down to journalists or researchers interviewing people making claims
that some may regard as delusional, or perhaps even indicative of
mental illness. Journalists are generally not doctors, or scientists,
or mental health professionals. It is not up to them to diagnose
someone as mentally ill.
“I
can't speak for everyone, but the questions I ask myself are: Does
this person understand the implications of speaking to a
journalist/researcher? Does this person understand that by
publicizing their claims, they could be mocked or ridiculed, or
simply not believed? Do they understand the journalist/researcher is
not an advocate or a believer in their claims? If I do not think
someone understands the implications of those questions, I do not use
them as a source (or subject) of an article. This is an imperfect
standard, perhaps, but it is how I approach these topics.”
Weinberger
explained that she has given a lot of thought to the ethics of
dealing with people who make claims of mind control. Ever since her Washington Post Magazine article on the topic,
she continues to receive what she termed daily emails from people all
over the world describing their alleged experiences, now some seven
years after the piece was published.
Nigel
Watson
Researcher
Nigel Watson is a long time self-employed writer. His interest in ufology inspired
him to obtain degrees in psychology, as well as film and literature.
Watson's research and resulting work has been published in such
magazines as Wired,
Fortean Times
and Magonia.
His several books and ebooks include The
Flying Saucer Cinema,
Portraits of Alien
Encounters
and his latest publication from Haynes, UFO
Investigations Manual: UFO Investigations from 1892 to the Present
Day.
Below are questions posed to Watson followed by his responses.
What
kinds of challenges might writer/researchers expect to encounter when
delving into the intelligence community and its relations to UFOs,
manipulating public opinion about UFOs and similar subject matter?
Dr. Leo Sprinkle |
It
was Bennewitz’s contention that Hansen had been fitted with an
alien implant that they might use to control her thoughts and
actions. Using his skills as an electronics expert he attempted to
intercept and block the signals he believed were being transmitted to
the woman’s implant.
At
one stage he used metal foil to block the signals, and then he
decided to intercept electronic low frequency (ELF) transmissions. He
was successful in finding ELF signals but they seem to have been
transmitted by the nearby Kirtland Air Force Base in the process
of conducting secret experiments as part of the SDI [Strategic
Defense Initiative] ‘Star Wars’ project.
When the USAF warned him not to continue his work he was all the more convinced that he had intercepted alien signals. Indeed, he contacted anyone who would listen about the UFO threat and he created a computer program to decode the signals. In response the USAF department of Air Force Office of Special Intelligence (AFOSI) bombarded him with as much disinformation as possible to make him look like a fully certified UFO nut.
Under these pressures Bennewitz suffered a mental breakdown. Even worse was the revelation that UFO researcher William Moore confessed that he had unwittingly aided the AFOSI by passing on disinformation to Bennewitz.
The disinformation material about alien bases, cattle mutilations, implants and abductions done with the aid and knowledge of the US government also became the subject of Linda Moulton Howe’s book, Alien Harvest. Howe alleged that documents shown to her later became the evidence used to prove the existence of a secret government project called Majestic 12 (MJ-12).
When the USAF warned him not to continue his work he was all the more convinced that he had intercepted alien signals. Indeed, he contacted anyone who would listen about the UFO threat and he created a computer program to decode the signals. In response the USAF department of Air Force Office of Special Intelligence (AFOSI) bombarded him with as much disinformation as possible to make him look like a fully certified UFO nut.
Under these pressures Bennewitz suffered a mental breakdown. Even worse was the revelation that UFO researcher William Moore confessed that he had unwittingly aided the AFOSI by passing on disinformation to Bennewitz.
The disinformation material about alien bases, cattle mutilations, implants and abductions done with the aid and knowledge of the US government also became the subject of Linda Moulton Howe’s book, Alien Harvest. Howe alleged that documents shown to her later became the evidence used to prove the existence of a secret government project called Majestic 12 (MJ-12).
This
highlights how information gets transferred and transfigured, which
goes beyond a single source into the mainstream of ufology and
popular culture.
How
might researchers most responsibly and ethically deal with members of
controversial demographics, such as alleged alien abductees and
self-described mind control victims, while writing about the reported
circumstances?
When I started investigating high strangeness cases in northern England during the 1970's, I came across several ethical issues. One solution was to keep witness names anonymous so that they would not suffer any public humiliation or distress. That was not always easy as some witnesses made their story public before I interviewed them or had put information in the public domain. I wrote up several of the cases in my book, Portraits of Alien Encounters (VALIS, 1990), and looked at them from a psychological point-of-view. Looking back on it I feel I could have been more restrained and careful about the witnesses’ feelings. The book carries correspondence between Norman Harrison (pseudonym) and myself about our varying views. One witness infamously disliked a chapter I wrote about her alien encounters, even though her story had already been published as a book and been publicised in the media.
You can and should consult with the witness, but this can lead to the suppression of essential information. It also depends on the audience you are presenting the case to - ufologists, local media, websites. I would certainly spend more time discussing such things and their implications to witnesses.
Other
circumstances worthy of consideration might include the challenges
related to critiquing the work of researchers of alien abduction.
Specifically, when we are critical of the actions and methodologies
undertaken by researchers, we risk bringing public embarrassment and
criticism to their research subjects, or alleged alien abductees. For
instance, it is difficult to critically review the work of the
researcher without indirectly calling the judgment of the abductee
into question. Any comments on that? Any remarks on how we might most
effectively address the work and ethics of the researcher of alien
abduction without causing the self-described abductee undue stress
and harm?
"Ufologists go from being highly sceptical to highly gullible, and discussions become personal rather than being based on the evidence."
This
is a very tricky area too! Ufologists
go from being highly sceptical to highly gullible, and discussions
become personal rather than being based on the evidence.
The abductee then becomes a ball in the game of ufology, who is
kicked around to prove or disprove the reality of abductions or some
finer point of ufological lore. Discussion when based on facts, not
politics, should be encouraged, as there are many ways of looking at a
case and new insights can be gained by sharing information.
.......................................................................................................
Part two will include comments and insights from Mark Pilkington, author of Mirage Men, among other works.
Ethics of Exploring the Fringe, Part Two: Mark Pilkington on Deception Operations, Witness Claims and More
.......................................................................................................
Part two will include comments and insights from Mark Pilkington, author of Mirage Men, among other works.
Ethics of Exploring the Fringe, Part Two: Mark Pilkington on Deception Operations, Witness Claims and More
No comments:
Post a Comment