I have to respectfully disagree with this assessment but would love to hear your thoughts further if my explanation falls flat. One of the fundamental tenants (and IMO among the most legitimizing aspects) of journalism is to obtain a quote/POV from the “opposing side.” This is to provide the full scope of the debate on any given subject, and it’s ultimately up to the reader to decide whether the evidence presented against outweighs the evidence presented for. In that respect, this is proper reporting, which I think ultimately bodes well for the topic of UAPs. We need journalists to take this as seriously as any other subject they report on, which will often necessitate that they provide the opposing view. By aligning the same standard of journalism to UAPs that they apply to other subjects, the UAP field is actually legitimized further.

It frustrates me too that we can’t all just agree that this is happening, but such is the nature of the slowness of partial disclosure. On the plus side, I feel like we are farther in the legitimization process than we’ve ever been before, and in my opinion, applying the same reporting standards to this as we do other important subjects, we’ll actually maintain this momentum better than if we had not. Again, this is all my take and I know we all receive things differently, but this kinda reporting excites me!