What is going on with the drones buzzing over New Jersey in the United States? Reportedly ‘the size of cars’, sometimes flying low in formation, these mysterious semi-identified flying objects have been sighted in their thousands every night – and only at night – for weeks. They might not even be drones. Are they alien spaceships? Are they from Russia or China? Are they just planes? Are they even anything at all?
I’ve watched a number of videos purporting to show these invaders. ‘What is that thing? It’s freaking huge!’ one awestruck observer can be heard over footage of what looks like a commercial passenger jet.
It’s increasingly hard to get a grip on some news stories in the modern media landscape
But am I seeing what I want to see, trying to fit the world back into its accepted normality as I see it? Not so long ago, I would have had no doubt that this was an outbreak of the kind of mania that seizes parts of the human race, and the media, from time to time. All it usually takes is for somebody official to tell everybody to stop being so bloody silly, at which point shoulders collectively shrug and we forget all about it.
Not anymore. The textbook ‘mysterious objects in the sky’ phenomena goes back in human history at least as far as Ezekiel. But now we have the familiar addition of the establishment cover-up: could the authorities be lying about this?
Among the viral drone videos doing the rounds over the last few days, boosted by Joe Rogan among others, sees the chief executive of a drone manufacturer advancing the theory that the objects are home grown. They could, he says, be searching for radioactive material or a ‘gas leak’. President-elect Donald Trump has said, ‘Can this really be happening without our government’s knowledge. I don’t think so! Let the public know, and now. Otherwise, shoot them down!!!’ But the angst crosses the political divide: Democrat Josh Gottheimer told CNN that the authorities ‘have a responsibility to brief the public more thoroughly…and to make sure everyone knows what they know. The bottom line is this: They are not providing enough information to the public’.
Justified or not, after the frequent hysterias, manias and deliberate official obfuscations that have occurred in this Very Online age – the Icelandic ash cloud of 2010, the Gatwick drone chaos in 2018, thin masks to protect against Covid – it’s increasingly hard to know what to take seriously and who to believe. On top of all that we’ve had the more socially-approved high status frenzies of Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and Carl Beech and his false allegations of a VIP pedophile ring in Westminster. These have seen all manner of accusations and Salem-style denunciations flying about, with little regard to due process or reality.
And then there’s the syndrome of ‘no news’ that turns out to be very big news. Hunter Biden’s laptop, the grooming gangs, the rise of transgenderism: all of these stories were initially too low-status to notice and object to, and yet all were true and objectionable. And the media wonders why it’s an uphill battle to get anyone to believe them.
It’s increasingly hard to get a grip on some news stories in the modern media landscape. We desperately need a cold, high, overlooking organisation that we can trust. The BBC is meant to fill this role; it was why it was set up the way it was: to stand above the fray and provide a complete picture, unburdened by commercial pressures and click-thirst. Yet it’s been one of the worst offenders in falling easy prey to every 21st century faddy madness from gender to (ironically) the disinformation panic. Facing unpleasant facts is hard in day-to-day life. In news, it’s surely essential. But the BBC has consistently flunked it. Its response to the confusion of the modern news era has been a textbook disaster. We needed dry, sober reliability. Instead we got the elevation of an individual presenter to the role of neutral arbiter, fronting a podcast called Why Do You Hate Me?
To my chagrin, I’ve started to turn to AI for my news when I need what the BBC used to give me. Grok, the AI incorporated into X, seems to provide a neat digest of information. I asked it for a précis of Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau’s recent political woes; it served me up a trim thousand words and links to sources and further reading.
Yes, I’m sure it has prejudices, but the trick with prejudices, for man or machine, is to try to get them to line up with reality as much as possible. Grok has the advantage over other AIs that it won’t lie to you about very basic facts if they might conflict with the worldview of its creators. If a computer will lie about the number of genders, as Chat GPT does, it can hardly be trusted about anything else.
So what does Grok have to say about the New Jersey drones? ‘Investigations are ongoing, and while there’s no evidence of a threat, the lack of clear answers has left the public and officials in a state of uncertainty.’ In other words, just like me, it hasn’t a clue.
Comments