[FedCom] Paranoia vs. Self-importance vs. Sensationalism

[BEADWINDOW at aol.com]

No one in military or federal law enforcement circles who is  knowledgeable 
about gov't communications & has read some of Douglass' work  is concerned with 
him at all.  If his phone is tapped, it'd be because  he's suspected of 
selling drugs or something, not because he's any sort of  'national security' 
concern.  He's a charlatan.
 
   Serious, intelligent hobbyists as well as military/federal  gov't commo 
professionals who've read his work over the past  decade understand that his 
focus is on making a quick buck, not on making a  name for himself as a serious, 
respected investigative journalist. That's  his right, though it is sad the 
market supports such poor work.   The hobbyist-class publications he's appeared 
in aren't edited for  fact-checking as much as they are to insert shills for 
other  products. Usually the only foot-notes for the column will indicate  that 
you can buy the aforementioned item from CRB Books or Grove  Enterprises, not 
a list of primary or secondary info sources...    Nor  is there any sort of 
peer-review offered, so as Steve Douglass and a few others  have learned, it 
can be easy to generate fantastic (as in 'fantasy') stories  that have their 
genesis in a few snippets of vague radio transmissions, and/or a  distant glimpse 
at something flying through the sky.    Look  at how many people are still 
falling for the various urban legends & scams  on the Internet -- people have an 
even greater tendency to believe something if  they read it in a 
glossy-covered magazine or hobbyist book sold around the  world, and the authors indicate 
they've collaborated with CBS, Aviation Week, or  whatever.
 
   As do the Weekly World News, National Enquirer, Art  Bell, & WWE 
Wrestling, Douglass has a loyal following -- some ignorant  enough to believe him 
(especially if they've succumbed to the notion that  dark forces are possibly 
tapping phones, because of all the sensitive info  Douglass magically comes 
across!). Others know better, but assume that  SOME of the wild tales must be correct 
(the "info-tainment" audience). Then  there are the clueless military or 
federal officials who come across the column  somehow & then pick up a stu-phone & 
waste our time by demanding to know  how a sensitive issue was discovered by 
the media.  Depending on who is  asking, sometimes we can just say that the 
guy is a crackpot & his info is  wrong -- case closed, but if it's a 
Congressional Inquiry or something, we have  to spend a couple days politely explaining 
in half a dozen pages that the  information is wrong & that the publication or 
author seems to have a  track-record of generating not only misinformation, 
but sensationalized  misinformation, etc.
 
   Finally, there is the smaller segment of the  population who have either 
have a gov't issued communications background, or are  intelligent people who 
have put the time & effort into listening, thinking  about what they hear 
without letting their imagination run wild, and doing  research over a period of 
time in order to be able to develop a decent  understanding of 
sensitive/classified matters, and get a laugh out of some of  the utter crap that the Steve 
Douglass machine spews out on  occasion.  
 
    With apologies to Howard Stern, numerous people pay  attention to 
Douglass, simply to see what sort of BS he's going to claim  next!  :)       
 
  His old AvWeek "Darkstar" stuff is *still* joked about by  the senior AWACS 
crew-dogs!
 
 
 I just flip though Popular Communications & Monitoring Times  when I can 
find then at Barnes & Noble, buying maybe one issue of each a  year due to an 
article on a topic matter I'm interested in, or one that gets a  topic I'm 
familiar with so wrong that I want to photocopy it & laugh about  it with my 
Squadron mates.  I gave up years ago in sending corrected  (unclassified, of course) 
info to the magazine, because they don't print  corrections which make the 
columnist ( & the magazine) look  sloppy.  It laughed out loud when I read Ken's 
post which suggested  some sort of "investigation" into Steve's claims.      
It's  refreshing to see when they've simply cut & pasted info out of official  
publications like the Flight Information Handbooks (without  attribution).   
On at least two occasions in the past, Steve Douglass  has been caught 
red-handed plaigerizing information.  One time it was with  a list of UHF satcom info, 
the other time, info he took from a Popular  Communications editor & put it 
up on his own web page without  attribution.
 
   This silly crackling-phone 'controversy' makes Douglass  happy, because 
intelligence & self-respect take a sideline to his ego.   He's gotten away with 
churning out misinformation for years, so more power to  him.  It has allowed 
him to buy (he certainly didn't earn  them) many squadron patches to put on 
his his MA-1 & look  cool  I'd like to think though that somewhere within the 
Popular  Communications magazine heirarchy, someone, probably Harold Ort before 
Tom  Kneitel (or even his cross-dressing role as Alice Brannigan), is going to 
 think that Steve's Fantastic Stories are doing more harm than good. On the  
other hand, maybe it's a last-ditch effort to save a magazine been on rocky  
financial grounds for a while now.  But I do feel sorry for whatever  
responsible journalist/columnists that Popular Communications may have, as  Douglass is 
surely an embarassment to them too.