textfiles/ufo/dsrat010.txt

The Groom Lake Desert Rat Issue #10 Uploaded here with the permission of the
author Glenn Campbell. 

Up loaded by Michael Curta Colorado MUFON

THE GROOM LAKE DESERT RAT.   An On-Line Newsletter.
Issue #10.  July 5, 1994.
 -----> "The Naked Truth from Open Sources." <-----
AREA 51/NELLIS RANGE/TTR/NTS/S-4?/WEIRD STUFF/DESERT LORE
Written, published, copyrighted and totally disavowed by 
psychospy@aol.com. See bottom for subscription/copyright info.

In this issue...
     MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS 101

[Note: This file ends with "#####".  Check for truncation.]

 ----- MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS 101 -----

OR "HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE 'ENCOUNTERS'"

People often ask us:  "Psychospy, you've been interviewed by every 
major TV network, several national magazines and a dozen local 
news outlets.  What's it like being a big-time media schmuck?"

Some readers may be frustrated that they have yet to receive their 
own fifteen minutes of fame while Psychospy has monopolized what 
seems like an hour and a half.  Fame is easy, we contend.  Just 
find yourself a Cold War military base the government won't admit, 
set up permanent residence beside it and write a tourist guide 
inviting the world to visit.  The government will expend great 
energy in stonewalling you or overreacting to your presence, and 
you will feed off that energy to generate still more attention.  
Soon, many reporters will arrive, and your face and name will be 
everywhere.

Follow those simple instructions and your fifteen minutes will 
come.  Guaranteed.  In the meantime, we would like to brief you on 
what to expect when you arrive at the top.  As an aging veteran of 
over six months of interviews, Psychospy knows what it takes to 
generate a sound bite or pose dramatically on a mountaintop.  As 
our own media career winds down toward inevitable has-been status, 
we want to share with the next generation our accumulated wisdom 
and our philosophical musings on news and how it is reported.

 ----- PRINT MEDIA -----

As editor of the Rat and other publications, Psychospy has long 
been familiar with the medium of print.  When you read a newspaper 
or magazine article, you can never be certain the writer is 
telling the truth or has just made the whole thing up, but if you 
do trust his honesty, print can convey a lot of information.  
Print is a medium of ideas.  It is not very efficient in conveying 
emotions or the visual appearance of a scene, but it can describe 
complex issues and hidden connections more clearly than television 
can.

When a newspaper reporter visits you at your research center near 
your chosen secret base, he comes with no tools except his notepad 
and perhaps a tape recorder.  Sometimes he brings a photographer, 
who just sits quietly in the background most of the time.  After 
talking with a newspaper reporter for a while, it's easy to forget 
that he is one of "them" and you may quickly revert to your 
natural, unrehearsed self.  Of course, this can be dangerous, 
because once you relax you may say something casually that you 
would rather not see in print.  You must be particularly 
circumspect about the topic of UFOs; no matter what you say on 
this subject, one group or another of your supporters is bound to 
be upset.  Sometimes, the reporter may ask you if he can contact 
your parents back in Boston to see what kind of boy you were and 
ask what they think of you now.  At this point, you have to draw 
the line.

When the article reaches print, some inaccuracies and omissions 
are inevitable.  Due to length restrictions, the article will be, 
at best, a highly distilled record of a very narrow slice of 
reality.  The words will not convey the full depth and breadth of 
your personality; they will portray only your social role.  To 
crystallize the issues that you want reported, it is important to 
say you represent an impressive sounding organization, even if you 
are its only active member.  Give yourself a title, like 
"President" or "Research Director," and that is how you will be 
reported.  Even if you choose to be only a "Local Representative," 
do not be surprised if the article portrays you as the sort of 
heroic, larger-than-life figure that is normally seen only in 
comic books.  This sometimes fawning attention results in part 
from the refusal of the military to respond to the charges and 
provide any counterpoint to your own one-sided story.

 ----- TALK RADIO -----

In the course of the current Media Feeding Frenzy, Psychospy has 
had an opportunity to participate in a number of talk radio 
programs around the country.  There are dozens of these shows in 
every major city and they are constantly on the prowl for new 
material.  If your name appears in the newspapers in any almost 
any capacity, chances are a host will call you up and ask you to 
be a guest on his show.

Radio talk shows are usually conducted live by telephone from the 
comfort of your own home.  It is hard to embarrass yourself or do 
anything wrong on them, because no matter what you blurt out, some 
callers will make you look good by saying something even more 
foolish.  Radio talk shows are perhaps the most revealing medium 
because you never know what questions are going to be thrown at 
you.  Many callers will be hostile to your position, and being 
able to respond to them calmly and rationally greatly enhances 
your credibility with everyone else.

 ----- TELEVISION -----

On the surface, television seems like the most "real" news medium.  
Television doesn't just report an event; it takes you there.  Not 
only do you hear the subject's words; you see his surroundings, 
feel his emotions and seem to be participating in his life in an 
intimate way.  In one sense, television doesn't lie.  Unless the 
picture has been doctored by special effects--which is forbidden--
what you would see in person is exactly what appears on the 
nightly news.

In another sense, television can tell as many lies as print can.  
There are two important factors that aren't obvious on the screen 
that can transform the story into total fiction.  One is editing.  
A crew can shoot an hour's worth of tape of a speech or interview, 
but due to the time constraints of broadcasting, only a few 
seconds of it is likely to air.  For the person being interviewed, 
the benefit of editing is that you can muff your lines repeatedly 
and only your best ones will be used.  Even if you are a babbling 
idiot, the show can make you look infinitely wise by editing out 
most of your drivel.  The downside is that it is also easy for the 
editor to take your quotes out of context and make you seem to be 
saying something you never intended.  A classic case is that of a 
local Sheriff's deputy who was once interviewed near the Black 
Mailbox by a crew doing a UFO story.  His actual quote was 
something like:  "I've seen the sky alive with activity--flares, 
dogfights, bombing runs--but everything I've seen is routine 
military maneuvers."

The quote that actually aired was missing all the qualifiers.  It 
was something like:  "I've seen the sky alive with activity..."  
In the context of the show, the truncated quote implied that the 
policeman believes in UFOs and sees them here all the time.

The other invisible factor influencing the story is the presence 
of the camera itself.  When a print reporter hangs around for a 
while, it is easy to forget he is reporting on you, and you soon 
return to your natural behavior.  A television camera is 
impossible to ignore.  It is big and the lens is often just a few 
inches from your face.  Nothing can really be natural as long as 
the camera is present.  Due to the constraints of lighting and 
space, you can't do much of anything the way you normally do.  
Often, the cameraman offers "suggestions" about where to stand and 
which way to look as you go about your "natural" activities.  

As a transitional element in the story, you may be asked to drive 
up in your car and walk into your research center--and do it 
repeatedly until it comes out right.   Most scenes of moving from 
place to place and performing routine actions are timed for the 
camera.  The cameraman sets up first and then tells you when to 
go.  The only rule that most reputable organizations observe is 
that they can't tell you to do something you wouldn't do normally.  
Sometimes, they'll ask you to repeat an action several times, but 
they want it to be consistent with your real personality and with 
what you would do if the camera wasn't there.  Of course, they can 
only take your word about what your real actions would be.  The 
charge of "staging" a scene usually makes cameramen bristle.  
They'll admit to doing it for routine movements but insist they 
wouldn't do it for anything important.  Unfortunately, what 
constitutes an "important" action that shouldn't be staged varies 
from crew to crew.

 ----- THE STRUCTURE OF TELEVISION -----

The crew for a local television station usually consists of just 
two people: the reporter and the cameraman.  Their function is 
straightforward:  The reporter collects the facts and asks the 
questions, and the cameraman handles the camera and sound.  

A network TV crew usually adds at least two more people:  a sound 
technician and a producer.  There can also be others: production 
assistants, writers, maybe even a second cameraman and sound guy.  
At that point, it's hard to call the story news anymore.  It's 
show biz.

In a national news program, the reporter is called a 
"correspondent."  This is the person talking into the camera and 
interviewing the subjects.  The viewer would think, when watching 
the report, that the correspondent is the person in charge.  He 
must be the one who conducts the research, sets up the interviews, 
rakes the muck and comes up with the startling conclusions 
reported in the piece.

Wrong.  In most cases, the correspondent joins the story only on 
the day of the shoot.  The correspondent is the high paid 
"talent," hired as much for his screen presence as his reporting 
skills.  The person who really assembles the story is the 
producer.  He or she rarely appears on camera but could have been 
working on the story for weeks.  The producer does the research, 
handles the logistics and briefs the talent.  When the 
correspondent conducts an interview, the producer is usually 
lurking just off camera to feed him questions and make sure he 
hasn't forgotten anything.  When it comes time to do a "stand up," 
where the correspondent talks into the camera, he first huddles 
with the producer to decide what to say.

One news program, like "60 Minutes," can have many producers, each 
working on a different story.  The business is highly competitive, 
and enemies are everywhere.  The opposition is "PrimeTime Live" 
and "20/20," but each producer is also competing with others on 
the same show and within the same network to get their story on 
the air.  Whenever a new producer calls us about the Groom Lake 
story, the first thing we have to do is brief them on who else in 
their own organization has already been looking into it; otherwise 
they might never know.

We get the impression that the news business regards producers as 
expendable and eats them alive in mass quantities.  The only time 
you see a producer on screen seems to be when he or she is 
carrying a hidden camera into a crack house or some other 
dangerous place where they would never send Mike Wallace.  Many of 
the producers we have met have been young, idealistic former film 
or political science students willing to work 14 hour days for 
what we suspect is a lot less money than they deserve.

The correspondent lives more in the show business sphere.  His pay 
may be negotiated by an agent, and it is more likely to be based 
on the star system than objective abilities.  Networks want a 
familiar face that the viewer can bond with, in essence creating 
brand loyalty.  Many people feel attached to Hugh Downes and 
Barbara Walters and the nice correspondents on their show and will 
tune in on these familiar faces even if they have nothing to do 
with producing the stories.  Many correspondents are highly 
professional, do their homework, ask good questions and deserve at 
least some of their rewards.  A few others are whiny prima donnas 
who haven't a clue as to what the story is and who are despised 
even by their own film crews.  Nonetheless, the unbroken rule is, 
the correspondent has to look good--smart, tough, insightful--and 
through the magic of editing, it always comes to pass.

When the correspondent arrives for the interview, you are supposed 
to bond with him like he's your old buddy even though you've 
already bonded with the producer and don't know this guy from 
Adam.  You are supposed to pretend there is no one else in the 
room.  The big camera, the bright lights, the microphone on a boom 
floating six inches above your head, the half dozen people lurking 
behind the cordon of cables....  Like the secret base itself, they 
all are not supposed to exist.

In practice, though, focusing on the correspondent makes the 
interview relatively easy.  You do forget the camera with time, 
and you don't have to remember any lines, just respond to the 
questions.  You know that the interview will be edited down to a 
couple of sound bites, so verbal stumblings aren't a problem.  You 
are not going to be able to cover any complex issues here because, 
of course, this is television.  Your only job is to provide an 
inventory of pithy, self-contained statements--a sound bite 
library--to be chopped up and used as fodder for the editing 
process.  

As long as you stick to the facts and pick the right secret base 
to complain about, you can't go wrong.  Editing will make you look 
good, and as long as the military declines to respond, the report 
will be supportive.  The limelight will be all yours until the 
public grows tired of your story and spits you out like used 
chewing gum.

 ----- AN "ENCOUNTERS" ENCOUNTER -----

After the article on Groom Lake appeared in the New York Times 
last week [Synopsis in next DR.], we felt that an apex had been 
reached and now was time for the story to evolve into something 
different.  We wanted the focus to shift to Washington and to 
serious issues like the hazardous waste injury lawsuit.  We feared 
that after hitting the Times, there was no place to go but down.  
We felt the Watchers-on-Freedom-Ridge story had achieved 
saturation in all the respectable markets.  We almost wished that 
the government would just take the damn land and be done with it.

The MFF was becoming tiresome, and we wanted to put on the brakes, 
but that was easier said than done.  The Times story itself 
generated additional media interest.  On Monday, we got a call 
from ARD German television.  Germans, we were told, have a special 
interest in Cold War relics, and our secret base reminded them of 
how they used to be.  Their film crew came a few days later, and 
we were happy to cooperate with them.  (Aired 7/4.)

On Tuesday, we got a call from a new Fox UFO/paranormal series 
called "Encounters."  They had talked to us in previous weeks 
about doing a segment on Area 51, but the project did not interest 
the Fox executives and was shelved.  When the Times story hit, it 
rose again from the dead, this time on a fast track schedule.

Upon hanging up the phone, we were filled the same feelings of 
dread and foreboding we last experienced several months previous 
when a reporter and his psychic from the "Weekly World News" came 
to town in a white limousine.  (Yes, we were as surprised as you 
are:  They DO have reporters who actually leave the office.)  In 
that case, we were able to hide under our bed until the limo left 
town.  When the story hit the streets ("SPACE ALIENS HANG OUT AT 
NEVADA BAR"), we were elated to find ourselves not in it.

It was harder to hide from "Encounters."  At the time of the phone 
call, only two episodes had been aired, but we already knew their 
style.  A stern anchorman introduced slickly produced segments on 
an ominous government conspiracy to keep UFO information from the 
public.  While we are as interested in UFOs and government secrets 
as anyone, we felt that "Encounters" was more fiction than news.  
Our main objection was the unscrupulous editing.  Interviews and 
footage from unrelated UFO cases were meshed together as though 
they were from the same case.  Sound bites from credible UFO 
researchers were interspersed with those of hucksters we have met 
personally and regard as completely unreliable.  The production 
was breathlessly paced, visually compelling and overlaid with a 
sinister soundtrack, but after watching each segment, we felt that 
no reliable information had been conveyed and no real 
investigation had taken place.

We had also been interviewed in January for the "Encounters" 
pilot.  They really wanted underground alien bases.  "Proof" 
wasn't necessary; all they needed was anecdotes.  We sensed that 
simply the fact that somebody had said something was enough to put 
the claim on the air.  Evidently, we did not provide the quotes 
they wanted, because none of our interview made the cut.  Only our 
hands were seen opening a road sensor.

Now, they were baaaack, like the unkillable monster of a "B" 
movie, and they wanted to interview us again.  We spent a 
sleepless night or two trying to figure out what to do.  We 
finally decided that our participation would probably do no 
lasting harm.  We would stick with the script we were comfortable 
with--on the land grab and perils of government secrecy--and let 
others speak about UFOs.

The "Encounters" expedition was lead by "Agent X", a frequent 
visitor to the area whose real identity is no more secret than 
Psychospy's.  X readily admits to being "shameless" with regards 
to publicity, but his claims about Area 51 are relatively 
rational.  He does not predict earthquakes, heal the sick or claim 
any psychic communication with the aliens.  X is the sort of 
powerful screen presence we feel honored to hide behind.

Agent X escorted the "Encounters" crew to the top of Freedom Ridge 
on Friday night (7/1), while Psychospy was at home and sound 
asleep.  Through the magic of editing, however, Psychospy will 
become part of this expedition on the small screen, along with the 
"Encounters" correspondent who wasn't there either.  In industry 
parlance, this story was shot "out of sequence."  First, they 
filmed the scene on Freedom Ridge, then, on a different night at a 
location many miles away, they shot an imaginary hike to the top.  
Later, back in Las Vegas, they would shoot the correspondent 
meeting Agent X to prepare for the expedition that had already 
taken place.

As X put it:  "They're even more shameless than I am."

On Saturday afternoon, the correspondent arrived in Rachel in a 
white limousine, the first one we've seen in town since the 
"Weekly World News."  He was supposed to be here in the morning, 
but his driver took a wrong turn, and they ended up taking the 
LONG way from Vegas, through Beatty and Tonopah, a six hour drive 
instead of two and a half.

After the correspondent arrived, Psychospy participated in two of 
the location shoots:  "Rachel Departure" and "Base Camp".  In 
Rachel, the crew energetically loaded their equipment cases onto 
the top of the four wheel drive vehicles and lashed them down 
while the camera rolled.  The idea was to convey the appearance of 
a very serious and professional "Encounters" expedition just 
getting under way.  It was the mythical start of our journey to 
Freedom Ridge, which had actually been conquered the night before.  
We did three takes of the convoy turning onto the highway and 
heading out of town,  Then we returned to Rachel, gassed up, had 
some snacks, and REALLY left town with no camera running.

We didn't go to Freedom Ridge but to a location near Hancock 
Summit that was closer to the highway and judged more visually 
interesting.  Here, we set up a "base camp" for our imaginary 
hike.  We propped up some camouflage netting in a tent-like 
structure, built a campfire and stacked our equipment cases in an 
impressive-looking configuration.  The sole purpose of this 
exercise was to provide an out-of-focus backdrop for the 
correspondent's interview with Agent X.  Psychospy and three 
members of the seven-man crew served as extras for this scene.  
Our job was to move around the campsite doing serious and 
purposeful looking things.  We moved cases around and pointed at 
maps as though planning our next move.  At one point, Psychospy 
walked around with a clipboard and pretended to take inventory, an 
action that has always impressed us on TV.

After the interview had ended and dusk was falling, we commenced 
our "hike".  In several takes, X, the correspondent and we four 
extras, marched up a nearby hillside in tight single file, 
deliberately taking the most rugged route.  We marched down again, 
then up again, then down again, and during each leg of the journey 
the director actually said "Action" and "Cut."  At one point, 
Psychospy was asked to stand on a ridge, silhouetted by the 
setting sun, and look through his binoculars at an empty sky.  
It's the sort of dramatic posturing we do so well.

Lest you ask, there is no reason at all to hike to Freedom Ridge 
if you have a four wheel drive.  The road goes all the way to the 
top, and this is indeed how the crew got there when they visited 
on Friday night.  There is also no particular reason to set up a 
"base camp" when Rachel is less than an hour's drive away.  Hiking 
seems much more dramatic, however, and our camouflage tent, no 
matter how shoddily constructed, made an impressive looking 
backdrop.

After darkness fell, the night vision lens was attached to the 
camera, and we climbed the hill yet again to film our arrival at 
"Freedom Ridge."  We stood on a rocky outcropping and X pointed 
out to the correspondent the features of the base below.  Of 
course, we were looking only a blank hillside--a TRULY nonexistent 
base--but the magic of editing will fix all that.  At one point, 
Psychospy was invited to point out the locations of the 
nonexistent security patrols.  We politely declined this 
opportunity and passed it to the shameless X.  We were happy 
enough to be a extra in this drama; something told us we didn't 
want a speaking role.

At the time of filming, the "Encounters" segment was expected to 
air on July 15.  Check it out.

 ----- INTEL BITTIES -----

TRESPASSER TRIAL DATE.  The oft-delayed trial of the four of seven 
accused trespassers is now scheduled for July 6 at 1 pm at Alamo 
Justice Court.  (The June date was canceled when one of the 
defendants was hospitalized.)  Best to confirm with Psychospy or 
call the court before you show up.

 ===== SUBSCRIPTION AND COPYRIGHT INFO =====

(c) Glenn Campbell, 1994.  (psychospy@aol.com)

This newsletter is copyrighted and may not be reproduced without 
permission, EXCEPT FOR THE FOLLOWING:  For one year following the 
date of publication, you may photocopy the text or send or post 
this document electronically to anyone who you think might be 
interested, provided you do it without charge.  You may only copy 
or send this document in unaltered form and in its entirety, not 
as partial excerpts (except brief quotes for review purposes).  
After one year, no further reproduction of this document is 
allowed without permission.  

Email subscriptions to this newsletter are available free of 
charge to any internet user.  To subscribe (or unsubscribe), send 
a message to psychospy@aol.com.

The mail address for Psychospy, Glenn Campbell, Secrecy Oversight 
Council, Area 51 Research Center, Groom Lake Desert Rat and 
countless other ephemeral entities is:
     HCR Box 38
     Rachel, NV 89001 USA

#####