A story that takes this muddiness, and so the topic, seriously will mention such conflicts and complications. It might also mention the more down-to-earth hypotheses for videos and images, or the fact that the Pentagon’s definition of UAP, according to the spokesperson Susan Gough, is simply “any aerial phenomena that cannot immediately be identified.” (That immediately could be doing a lot of work.) Other coverage has dug into the origins of AATIP, the connections among and the longtime paranormal enthusiasm of major players, and the money involved in the form of political donations and a private UFO research and entertainment company. See an article that includes none of that information? Clicker beware. Many UFO stories accept what “serious people” say on faith, falling prey to an “appeal to authority”—taking the person’s identity as evidence that their claim is true. Consider, for example, the 60 Minutes segment on UAP in which host Bill Whitaker interviews Christopher Mellon, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence. “So it’s not us, that’s one thing we know,” said Mellon, meaning that certain UFOs spotted by military personnel were not U.S. technology. “We know that?” Whitaker asked. “I can say that with a very high degree of confidence in part because of the positions I held in the department, and I know the process,” Mellon responded, and the segment moved on. Scrutinizing such details is complicated, and it takes time. It’s much easier to stop at fun and weird, and in the case of the current rhetoric, spooky-scary. And keeping it simple makes for a better story, in the traditional sense of the word. Journalists, Eghigian said, “are interested in finding a way to make everything come together in a nice, neat little bundle … Nuance is often a victim in that process.”