“Paranormal” is a form of narrative structure—a way of packaging the world to emphasize the mysterious and secret. We see social bonding under this narrative (though opinions on it can be widely diverse) (Jenzen & Munt 2013). As popular culture content providers capitalized on public interest in the paranormal, primarily with reality television and associated events, paranormal investigation groups after 2000 promoted an image of the dedicated, sober, technological, scientifically-minded, and skeptical researcher. That’s what they hoped the audience perceives.
Paranormal Themes in Pop Culture
Themes of UFOs, hauntings, and monsters are ubiquitous and universal in pop culture. Paranormal phenomena themselves have national and cultural origins and flavors. The history of ARIG groups of each category shows that the origin of some paranormal subjects began in other countries and were imported to the U.S. UFOs seem to be a particularly American invention that we exported to the world, yet distinct types of aliens emerged around the world. The ubiquitous “gray” alien with big black eyes evolved out of the American media in the 1960s before spreading globally. Paranormal media, especially television “discovery” shows, caught on strongly in the U.S. Some of these cultural ideas may not have originated in the U.S. but they were given a great boost or reimagined thanks to the American popularity of ghosts, huge ape-like wild men, red-eyed mystery animals, and gray humanoid alien abductors.
Most every American knows the iconic Frame 352 of the Patterson-Gimlin film purportedly showing an alleged striding Bigfoot. Many people know that there are local paranormal investigators that offer to come to your house just like on the TV shows. Too many observers call any light in the sky a UFO. Because society is acutely familiar with these concepts, there is a psychological effect at play that causes one report to lead to even more reports of a similar event. This “contagion of experiences” (Westrum 1977) reveals that the popularity of reporting of such events is strongly conditioned by social forces (Sagan & Page 1972). In the history of UFO sightings in particular, we see patterns of reports that are called “flaps.” These “flaps” which also occur for sightings of Bigfoot or other unusual creatures (such as Mothman in 1966–67 West Virginia and Jersey Devil of 1909 in New Jersey and Pennsylvania), can have more to do with what people anticipate they will see than what they actually do see. During the 1990s when the X-Files television show was popular, UFOs, the extraterrestrial hypothesis, and ideas about government conspiracies were flourishing. Instead of a rash of reports suggesting that experience is genuinely happening, it could be that witnesses are interpreting observations in this anomalous context because that’s the frame of mind they are in. There are many examples of contagion including episodes of mass hysteria where many people experience illness or panic. One famous example of contagion is that of an escaped red panda. In 1978, a clever red panda absconded from the Rotterdam (The Netherlands) Zoo. The zoo received calls reporting panda sightings for a year after the animal was found dead near the zoo very soon after the escape. The “red panda effect” means people see what they are told to see, not necessarily what is really there.4 A more recent example is that of creepy clown sightings that occurred in 2016.5
The same contagion of experience can be seen in ghost experiences where every noise or anomaly noted in a so-called “haunted” location will be automatically attributed to the legendary spirit(s). If we are primed with a story regarding what might be seen or felt, people are more likely to interpret any stimulus in accordance with that preconceived notion. Also, human nature compels us to play along for the sake of fitting in and having a group experience. Childs and Murray (2010) explain in their assessment of verbal descriptions by paranormal investigators that context is everything. When two or more people describe what happened, the narrative evolves to include and reinforce all persons’ views but rolls out in a way suitable to the social conditions, not as a strictly objective account of what happened. The authors note: “Rather than remember events in ways that reflect best attempts at accurate recall, speakers provided accounts in ways that attended to particular interactional business.” In other words, the speakers attend to the function of telling about the events. If the implicit goal is to present evidence suggestive of paranormal activity, the speakers will follow a pattern of telling that includes means to head off arguments or conflicts and using devices (unintentionally) that enhance their credibility and trustworthiness. Examples include avowal of prior skepticism (Lamont 2007), which is an assurance that the witness is not gullible, appeals to science and authority, and hesitancy to definitively proclaim the paranormal but letting the listener decide.
Critical counters to pro-paranormal themes are the skeptical (doubtful) or non-believer’s views. Proper skepticism in terms of philosophy and science is described previously. Skepticism is also a culturally acceptable point of view. Hill emphasizes that skepticism is a “significant aspect of representation of the paranormal in pop culture” (A. Hill 2010: 59). The skeptic is thought of as the being the “rational thinker,” a useful foil in a narrative where the experiences are described as extraordinary. The skeptic enhances the paranormalists’ view by defining the end points on the belief spectrum—think Mulder versus Scully (X-Files) as the classic and greatly overused contrast, but some of us still think of Velma opposed to Shaggy from Scooby Doo as the ultimate representation of paranormal poles of belief. Paranormal TV shows today often include the “token skeptic” role (usually a scientist such as on Finding Bigfoot) and ARIGs often single out the “skeptical” member of their teams. Avowal of prior skepticism described above is such common behavior for ARIGs that it’s nearly a defining characteristic. They will say they once were skeptical but now are convinced, providing a casual cross-check that suggests they have their wits about them and are not easily convinced.
Paranormal Media
Human societies routinely share stories of mystery, spirits, and monsters. Famous American writers Washington Irving and Edgar Allan Poe embraced supernatural themes early in U.S. history (Booker 2009) and wove this motif into the fabric of the new country’s history. We are exposed to supernatural horror stories, myths, legends, and spiritual ideas from the time we are children and through adulthood. Mystery and sensationalism sells papers, movie tickets, or, in today’s age, gets clicks. Society’s fears, beliefs, and desires are turned into a revenue stream and cultural industries (A. Hill 2010; Clarke 2012).
The modern Spiritualist movement featuring psychic mediums and séances originated in the United States in the mid–1800s (Irwin 1989). Radio dramas and late night call-in shows helped propel popularity of the genre of ghost stories and science fiction. The Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster entered the scene in the 1920s and 30s. A post-war surge in unorthodox ideas introduced to the public to the likes of Immanuel Velikovsky, Ivan Sanderson, and Vincent Gaddis who popularized fringe ideas about the world. The term “UFO” was coined in 1950 by U.S. Air Force officer Edward Ruppelt as flying saucers were seen across the skies. Various other unorthodox scientific and occult ideas were discussed in the 1950s. Magazines for men and kids featured weird tales. Media coverage, especially television, was a key to spreading these new ideas and helped frame the public response (Clarke 2013). Bigfoot walked into the public consciousness in the late 1950s with the Patterson-Gimlin film that Patterson self-promoted across the country. By the end of the 1960s, there was an explosion of interest in strange phenomena (Thurs 2007) that led to paranormal media for mass consumption (Northcote 2007). Parapsychology, focused on untapped mind potential, established itself as a legitimate, but controversial, scientific field (Allison 1979; Collins & Pinch 1982; Hess 1993) from the 1930s through the 1970s. Astrology, psychics and “far out” New Age ideas fanned out into the culture.
Mass media has regularly featured strange content for its audience beginning with early newspapers reporting sea serpent sightings, poltergeist troubles, and strange things in the sky. But, the 1960s and 70s marked the proliferation of popular books and televis
ion programs on unexplained mysteries such as Bigfoot and lake monsters, the Bermuda Triangle, lost civilizations, haunted houses, and psychic abilities. With these fantastic claims came those determined to investigate the claims and nab the title of “expert.” The National Enquirer, a tabloid that had existed for decades, put paranormal-themed exposés on their cover beginning around 1968 (Thurs 2007) when the counterculture movement was in full swing. A portion of the public became discontented and hostile towards the negative products of scientific progress like bombs, chemicals, and industrial waste. Alternatives to orthodox science, like ufology and parapsychology, grew popular at this time. In a snapshot from 1973, a survey showed that a whopping 95% of the American public was aware of what “UFO” meant (Denzler 2003) and many thought they were a threat.
Reports of “high strangeness” (as coined by J. Allen Hynek) were given the “X” label, which stuck. It means paranormal, supernatural, or “extremely” out of the ordinary (Thurs 2007). It’s also the unknown variable in mathematics. The “X” factor made its most indelible mark with The X Files TV show, which ran from 1993 to 2002 and was resurrected again in 2016. This series was a key pop cultural product related to investigating the strange, and introduced many viewers to conspiracy ideas that were already established in remote corners of society.
The linkage between different fields of strange or weird studies into “paranormal” was forged by television shows like In Search Of… (1976–1982), Unsolved Mysteries (1987–2002, 2008) and Sightings (1992–1997), magazines such as Fate, and certain authors, most notably John Keel. Charles Fort (1874–1932) provided very early grist for the mill with his collected accounts of anomalies he called “damned data” because they were incongruent with scientific observations of the time. Fort’s collections of anecdotes and accounts remain somewhat popular today, most notably through the Fortean Times magazine, billed at the “World’s Best Source of Weird News.” Fort would likely have been flabbergasted at the modern commercialism of weird news. Reporting of anomalies is big business as several news outlets now seek out and publicize strange stories and many Internet sites obtain huge numbers of visits by specializing in reporting anomalous news events (often without any investigation of the claim). Big-impact outlets such as Associated Press and Huffington Post have spun off specific branches of their social media stream or web space to feature oddities and anomalies.6
Indeed, paranormal topics have become so normal a part of popular culture that they are mundane. A vast array of products capitalize on ghosts, UFOs, and cryptids as selling points.7 Casual interest in these subjects is acceptable, but it’s still considered a bit odd to go Bigfoot hunting or try to spot UFOs in your spare time. Television and the Internet have lessened the stigma surrounding discussion of these topics in public arenas.
Paranormal TV
Television is a major influence on our culture and evolved rapidly into a primary means by which we learn about the world. The explosive growth since the 1980s of 24-hour cable channels, satellite service and the Internet has dramatically increased the need for content. Face it: a scientific process simply doesn’t make for exciting television viewing. So reality is edited and dramatized to show forensic or scientific investigation in a superficial way to solve crimes or mysteries. Ambiguity, nuance, and complexity of the human experience are more difficult to depict than emotions like fear and hope. Educational programming was too dull so it was retooled into entertainment.
An example of a “mysterious shadow” created with a slow shutter speed by a subject pausing for a few seconds, and then walking out of frame. By stopping midstride, he reflected enough light to make an impression on the image. Photograph by Kenny Biddle.
Prior to the reality-TV era, which began around 2000, shows like In Search Of… and Unsolved Mysteries portrayed concepts of the paranormal with an unnerving uncritical angle. In Search Of… had a documentary style but Unsolved Mysteries went further to provide dramatic recreations of purported events. Even though it commonly was left up to the viewers to “decide” what to make of these supposedly true stories, there is no doubt that these shows framed the stories with an effort to persuade the viewer to consider a paranormal interpretation. With the rise of reality television, “experience” rather than arguments or reasoned conclusions became the norm. Today’s modern paranormal-themed shows are blatant about belief and enhance the persuasion with drama, night vision camera work, scary music, voice-overs and a narrative that conveniently ignores other interpretations (Harvey 2013). The “angle” is picked first and then all the supporting content is added. This is backwards from a scientific process where the investigator surveys the data first before coming up with a theory to explain it. Unfortunately, that’s not a great format for a television show. Scientific ideas are not judged on their entertainment value (Mooney & Kirshenbaum 2009). Despite the illusion of scientific investigation, paranormal reality shows are over-simplified, dramatized, and sensationalized to appeal to an audience who desires to be thrilled and amused rather than well-informed. Inaccuracies creep in or are ignored. Reenactments of events, for example, are necessarily interpretation. Dramatic flourishes may be inserted that distort or misrepresent historical accuracy. Scientific processes and the capabilities of a scientist are distorted and incomplete, even dumbed-down to the point of absurdity. The role of investigator is edited and dramatized to the point of being cartoonish. Failures, mistakes, possible alternatives, and ambiguities are excluded from the story because of time limitations or perceived lack of interest. Viewers, who don’t get the whole story, are encouraged to decide for themselves. This method is manipulative, requiring the viewer to accept that the TV presentation provided all they needed to know to make an informed decision. The results are of poor intellectual quality (Hufford 2001). Unsupported ideas are afforded a degree of respectability based on their entertainment value.
The paranormal was well-publicized but not legitimized. Skeptics and even members of the paranormal community argued that the paranormal TV boom promoted misinformation and confusion about paranormal topics. Regardless, television heavily influenced many future ARIGs to get involved in “the field,” starting them off with a wrong impression of what is fact and what is unsupported speculation. Popular media is an important element in learning about culture (Mooney & Kirshenbaum 2009). Those eager to discover the paranormal world for themselves see everyday folks “investigating” on TV and think, “Hey, I could do that.” Even the fictional The X-Files inspired would-be investigators to imitate FBI agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully.
Paranormal non-fiction television in the 2000s was a hybrid of reality TV and history documentaries (A. Hill 2010). Shows like Most Haunted in the UK, the first in a long line of similar shows, reflected and reinforced cultural trends of paranormal belief (Koven 2007). One result of their popularity and influence is the common assumption that any historic place must be haunted. Talk of resident ghosts or monsters became more prevalent among those who embraced the role of “hauntrepreneur”8 to promote tourist income. The owners of several hotels, houses, historic buildings (especially prisons or hospitals), restaurants, and pubs capitalized on the exposure gained from paranormal television to draw more paying visitors eager for their own spooky experience.
The lucrative new wave of paranormal TV was exploited by cable networks specializing in human interest and curiosity about the world: A&E, Discovery, Travel Channel, History Channel and The Learning Channel. By airing supposedly fact-based programming related to hauntings, UFOs, and cryptozoology, these media outlets mainstreamed paranormal topics for people who had never been exposed to the ideas in a serious (seemingly non-fictional) way. Television propelled the activity of amateur research and investigation to an acceptable, even trendy, pastime through real depictions of investigators. The ARIGs will readily admit to television as being a major influence and an impetus to explore the paranormal on their terms. Brown’s (2008) book Ghost Hunters of New England contained interviews with ghost hun
ters who cited the strong influence of paranormal-themed television shows such as Sightings, Unsolved Mysteries and, most often, Ghost Hunters on the SyFy network, featuring the crew of The Atlantic Paranormal Society (TAPS). ARIG members told Brown that TAPS opened the field of ghost investigation to the public and inspired many to form their own groups (pp. 85, 146). Ghost Hunters became a brand. Other popular investigators or writers built their own brands to capitalize on this new social niche of the average person as paranormal investigator. Paranormal belief was turned into a revenue stream for television networks and advertisers and was used by related parties to capitalize on the interest in weird things.
Proliferating in the 2000s, License (2016) refers to paranormal reality TV as “immersive theatre” as the participants were at an interesting location with a curious story and several props. The backstory (which was often fictionalized and never fact-checked by the investigators) was reinforced by attributing any anomalies found to the possibly fictional narrative.9 The shows not only displayed a veneer of science, according to License, but a veneer of history. The backstories dictated what would be found and how it would be interpreted—not conducive to an objective investigation at all.
Scientifical Americans Page 5