While some researchers who routinely follow the story of the UFO now find themselves wrapped up in questions of what's Chinese, what's not Chinese and what are truly unknown objects above, I've been delighted by the media's clownish attempts not to call a UFO a UFO. While great care has been taken by most to reference The Sky Object Of The Day as an "unidentified object" sans the word "flying" for some reason, others such as Fox News have indeed stumbled into the forbidden semantic gruesome threesome territory and called at least one of the things an (1) unidentified (2) flying (3) object with no word holds barred. Other enterprising news sources have been bold enough to substitute two different words while keeping one, thereby coming up with a "high altitude object."
The word "flying" too closely designates performance under intelligent control, and excluding a word that removes the very concept of animation by intent keeps the entire topic in safer realms to keep media, military and especially the White House satisfied, depending upon the occasion. Besides, nobody in the newsroom or at the Pentagon press desk wants to be inundated with phone calls and e-mails simply because somebody reported shooting down what they call a UFO.
Ongoing spy balloon/object escapades have captivated a drooling mainstream media which usually can't give a rat's for more than a day about incredibly bizarre things soaring through our air space, outwitting both humans and our silly instrumentation. UFO stories for the most part involve a wink, a nod and a sentence or two, and then it's on to the latest outrageous comment uttered by the celebrity of the day.
In the middle of all this comes a little radar blip over Montana, thought to be nothing of interest. A "false" reading, they mutter. We suppose. Then we are informed of a cylinder shape and an octagon shape, topped off with an intriguing comment about a jet fighter describing instrument problems during a close approach to, as the late commentator Paul Harvey might have said, a "what'sit."
One is indeed reminded of the "Twitter files," and among the, what do they call them. . .oh, yeah. . .among conspiracy theorists you might almost believe that some White House or Pentagon contact was urging the media NOT to use those three little words in unison. (1) I (2) love (3) you is fine, but none of this (1) unidentified (2) flying (3) object blather. Why three words when just two will do the job? Pentagon personnel do not need the additional abuse while dealing (away) with the balloon stuff -- particularly when President Biden has already annoyed Congress by letting damned object number one traverse the nation in an apparently aeronautical spy's paradise without swift consequence.
The more attention placed upon the air above us, the more people will pay attention to what shouldn't be there, and what shouldn't be there often comes down to the three-word phrase that isn't "I love you." When, with or without a crowbar, the mainstream media can be forced to look up, up and way up, the curious among us tend to re-focus upon the naked fact that, despite all the recent UFO attention and congressional action, we American serfs, oops, I mean we Americans are still waiting for answers about things other than Chinese balloons and mysterious floaters likely manufactured on Earth by humans. The trick is in force-feeding the subject, making it impervious to disappearing from public view. But as they say on the street, hackneyed phrase though it is, good luck with that.
(Update: Days later, a growing number of media sources have suddenly become comfy using all three words together (Say it! Say it!), and so far nobody's laptop has burst into flames as a consequence.)
