Why is the mainstream media coverage of paranormal activity always so lazy?

Genuine question: has anyone else noticed that literally every news outlet approaches anything paranormal with this condescending, "let's explain the scary thing with physics" energy? It's like they've got a template.

Missing person = possibly abducted = "hikers often underestimate distances." Unexplained lights = UFO = "military aircraft tests." Poltergeist activity = clearly fake = "drafts and settling foundations cause noises." They never interview actual people seriously. They always drag in some dismissive expert who hasn't even looked at the evidence.

Is it institutional laziness, or is there something more deliberate about keeping public discourse away from these topics? I'm not usually a conspiracy type, but it does seem coordinated somehow.

It's institutional laziness mixed with liability concerns. Paranormal coverage = angry viewers complaining. UFO coverage = getting lumped in with "crazy people." News outlets now care more about advertiser-friendly content than actual investigation. It's a business decision, not a cover-up, but the result is the same: poor journalism.

To be fair, the paranormal community doesn't help itself sometimes. For every credible witness there's someone selling chakra cleansing kits or claiming aliens told them to start a cult. News outlets learnt to be skeptical. Doesn't excuse the dismissive tone though.

You want good paranormal coverage, you have to look outside traditional media. Podcasts, independent researchers, blogs run by actual experts. The BBC isn't going to do the work when they can just interview an astronomer for five minutes.

The template thing is real though. It's like there's an actual playbook: mysterious phenomenon → find rational explanation → interview local official who agrees with explanation → 2-minute segment → move on. I've genuinely never seen a major news outlet report something as genuinely unexplained. Even when they can't explain it, they imply that someone could if they wanted to.

This is why I love independent researchers and local news sometimes. When the BBC won't touch something, the Cornish Guardian or Scottish local radio will actually let people talk. The hyperlocal stuff is sometimes better than national coverage.