In October 1967, the famous Patterson–Gimlin film thrust Bigfoot into the American mainstream, turning a Pacific Northwest legend into a household name. Early coverage of the grainy footage which allegedly shows a large, hairy biped striding along Bluff Creek was marked by fascination as well as healthy skepticism. Newspapers reported on the film and subsequent footprint finds as intriguing mysteries, and television programs in the 1960s and 70s often treated Bigfoot as a possibility rather than a punchline.
The term "Bigfoot" was even coined by a reporter named Andrew Genzoli, in October of 1958, some nine years earlier when bulldozer Jerry Crew discovered and cast a giant footprint of what was then termed in the media as Sasquatch.
Importantly, even after decades of analysis, the Patterson–Gimlin footage has “yet to be officially debunked”a fact that hasn’t stopped a noticeable shift in media tone over the years. What began as curious inquiry in the late 60s and 70s has gradually given way to overt bias and ridicule in many U.S. media outlets today. This article explores how that shift occurred, highlighting specific cases where misinformation or selective reporting skewed public perception of Bigfoot research.
The term "Bigfoot" was even coined by a reporter named Andrew Genzoli, in October of 1958, some nine years earlier when bulldozer Jerry Crew discovered and cast a giant footprint of what was then termed in the media as Sasquatch.
Importantly, even after decades of analysis, the Patterson–Gimlin footage has “yet to be officially debunked”a fact that hasn’t stopped a noticeable shift in media tone over the years. What began as curious inquiry in the late 60s and 70s has gradually given way to overt bias and ridicule in many U.S. media outlets today. This article explores how that shift occurred, highlighting specific cases where misinformation or selective reporting skewed public perception of Bigfoot research.
In the immediate aftermath of the Patterson–Gimlin film’s release in 1967, media reports demonstrated a mix of wonder and caution. The story hit wire services and national news, introducing “Bigfoot” to readers across the country. Magazines and TV documentaries of the era (for example, Leonard Nimoy’s “In Search of…” series) explored the Sasquatch mystery with a relatively straight face, interviewing eyewitnesses and scientists. This early coverage often maintained a tone of open curiosity, reflecting a willingness to at least entertain the question of Bigfoot’s existence. For instance, when footprint casts and alleged Bigfoot evidence were presented, news outlets would report the details and expert opinions, sometimes skeptically, but without the outright derision common in later years.
By the 1970s, Bigfoot had firmly entered popular culture, and media attention remained strong. Scientists like primatologist John Napier and later Dr. Grover Krantz publicly debated the evidence, which the press dutifully covered. In 1958 (a precursor to the film’s fame), the Humboldt Times ran a front-page story about giant footprints, and after it was picked up by the AP, even The New York Times and Los Angeles Times mentioned “Bigfoot” by name. An NBC quiz show at the time jokingly offered a reward to explain those prints, indicating that while there was humor, the phenomenon was taken seriously enough to become a nationwide talking point. In summary, during the 60s and 70s the press treated Bigfoot as an open mystery, a subject of legitimate investigation and public interest. Articles would often conclude that further evidence was needed, rather than flatly declaring the topic “debunked.”
The Minnesota Iceman As the decades progressed, a shift in media tone became evident. By the 1980s and 90s, Bigfoot research was increasingly framed as a fringe pursuit. Mainstream news coverage grew more sporadic and often carried a playful or dismissive undertone as the nightly news might feature a Sasquatch sighting in the “odd news” segment, complete with tongue-in-cheek commentary or the X-Files theme music in the background. This era saw fewer serious investigations in prestige outlets, and more winks to the audience. The legacy of prominent hoaxes (like the 1969 “Minnesota Iceman” or various man-in-a-suit antics) perhaps made editors wary of treating Bigfoot as hard news. Instead, coverage often defaulted to skepticism first.
By the late 1990s, the prevailing media narrative was that Bigfoot was likely mythical. A position often presented as a given, without acknowledging that many questions remained unresolved. If an alleged sighting or footprint find was reported, it was typically couched with reminders that “no definitive proof” has ever been found, sometimes ignoring any supporting evidence short of a captured creature. Still, even with a cooler tone, outright bias had yet to fully replace curiosity; that change would accelerate in the 2000s with a couple of high-profile “debunkings” that media outlets trumpeted enthusiastically; sometimes too enthusiastically, at the expense of accuracy.
By the late 1990s, the prevailing media narrative was that Bigfoot was likely mythical. A position often presented as a given, without acknowledging that many questions remained unresolved. If an alleged sighting or footprint find was reported, it was typically couched with reminders that “no definitive proof” has ever been found, sometimes ignoring any supporting evidence short of a captured creature. Still, even with a cooler tone, outright bias had yet to fully replace curiosity; that change would accelerate in the 2000s with a couple of high-profile “debunkings” that media outlets trumpeted enthusiastically; sometimes too enthusiastically, at the expense of accuracy.
A turning point in media treatment of Bigfoot came in 2002 with the death of Ray Wallace, a man with a colorful history linked to Bigfoot lore. Wallace’s family came forward after his passing and made sensational claims that grabbed headlines: they showed reporters a set of crude wooden “big feet” carvings and declared that Ray Wallace had invented Bigfoot as a prank in 1958. In initial reports, the family even alleged that Wallace made a “deathbed confession” admitting it was all a hoaxbfro.net. The media leapt on the story. Virtually every major newspaper and TV network ran pieces proclaiming that “the truth can finally be told about Bigfoot” – namely, that a single jokester had started it all.
What followed was a wave of arguably biased and oversimplified coverage. Many reports failed to clarify that Wallace’s antics (fake footprints in 1958) explained at best a small piece of the Bigfoot puzzle, not the myriad sightings and evidence reported over decades. Instead, press accounts that December blared that Bigfoot had been exposed as a fraud. For example, The New York Times ran a front-page story on January 3, 2003 titled “Search for Bigfoot Outlives the Man Who Created Him”, uncritically crediting Ray Wallace as the creator of the Sasquatch legend. In that piece, reporter Timothy Egan painted Bigfoot believers as foolish and even misquoted scientists to bolster the narrative attributing to three researchers a statement that they “give Mr. Wallace credit for the hoax,” which those scientists flatly denied ever saying. The Times story and others like it suggested that with Wallace’s confession, the “mystery of Bigfoot” had been solved once and for all.
This media frenzy largely ignored inconvenient facts. Wallace’s own family couldn’t keep their story straight – some even recanted the “deathbed confession” claim shortly after, admitting there was no literal confession yet that didn’t stop outlets from repeating it. Nor did most reporters bother to distinguish between Wallace’s fake loggers’ tracks in 1958 and things like the Patterson–Gimlin film of 1967 (which Wallace had nothing to do with).
Late-night comedians piled on: Jay Leno quipped about Bigfoot’s “death” and CNN’s Aaron Brown and Fox’s Shepard Smith treated the Wallace tale as virtual proof that “Bigfoot didn’t exist” all reinforcing the narrative that serious consideration of Sasquatch was laughable. In the public mind, Bigfoot had been debunked. One Bigfoot researcher marveled at how “the media bought all of it… a rural family came forward with far-fetched, inconsistent claims…and that was nothing short of unquestionable proof to the mass media”. The bias against Bigfoot research was now on full display: evidence and experts on one side were disregarded, while an unverified hoax story was swallowed whole because it fit the skeptical storyline.
Perhaps the most egregious example was a 2003 ABC News report (also circulated via AOL News online) that mistakenly mixed together the Wallace claims with the separate Patterson–Gimlin film and got the facts terribly wrong. ABC reported that the famous 1967 film was a hoax “because on his deathbed in 2002 [Ray Wallace] confessed to the film being fake.” This was completely false on multiple levels. Roger Patterson (who filmed the Bigfoot in 1967) died back in 1972, and he never confessed any hoax. Ray Wallace, who died in 2002, had no connection to Patterson’s film, and even he never actually claimed to have faked that footage.
The ABC piece was an astonishing error, essentially a fabrication, yet it aired, further spreading the myth that “the guy who got that famous footage admitted before he died that he faked it.” Bigfoot researchers immediately cried foul, and one contacted ABC News with documentation to request a retraction. The response? According to that researcher, ABC said if they found they were wrong they’d issue a correction, but they never did. The false story remained uncorrected, illustrating a worrying lack of accountability when it came to Bigfoot-related journalism.
The Ray Wallace episode revealed how eagerly many media outlets would embrace a debunking story, even a shaky one, and amplify it without much fact-checking. It cemented a template that would be seen again: skeptical claims get top billing, while rebuttals or nuances are barely mentioned. After 2002–2003, the default media position on Bigfoot was entrenched: the whole subject was viewed as, at best, a lighthearted myth, and at worst a fraud kept alive by the gullible. Any new evidence or pro-Bigfoot research would now face an uphill battle for fair coverage.
What followed was a wave of arguably biased and oversimplified coverage. Many reports failed to clarify that Wallace’s antics (fake footprints in 1958) explained at best a small piece of the Bigfoot puzzle, not the myriad sightings and evidence reported over decades. Instead, press accounts that December blared that Bigfoot had been exposed as a fraud. For example, The New York Times ran a front-page story on January 3, 2003 titled “Search for Bigfoot Outlives the Man Who Created Him”, uncritically crediting Ray Wallace as the creator of the Sasquatch legend. In that piece, reporter Timothy Egan painted Bigfoot believers as foolish and even misquoted scientists to bolster the narrative attributing to three researchers a statement that they “give Mr. Wallace credit for the hoax,” which those scientists flatly denied ever saying. The Times story and others like it suggested that with Wallace’s confession, the “mystery of Bigfoot” had been solved once and for all.
This media frenzy largely ignored inconvenient facts. Wallace’s own family couldn’t keep their story straight – some even recanted the “deathbed confession” claim shortly after, admitting there was no literal confession yet that didn’t stop outlets from repeating it. Nor did most reporters bother to distinguish between Wallace’s fake loggers’ tracks in 1958 and things like the Patterson–Gimlin film of 1967 (which Wallace had nothing to do with).
Late-night comedians piled on: Jay Leno quipped about Bigfoot’s “death” and CNN’s Aaron Brown and Fox’s Shepard Smith treated the Wallace tale as virtual proof that “Bigfoot didn’t exist” all reinforcing the narrative that serious consideration of Sasquatch was laughable. In the public mind, Bigfoot had been debunked. One Bigfoot researcher marveled at how “the media bought all of it… a rural family came forward with far-fetched, inconsistent claims…and that was nothing short of unquestionable proof to the mass media”. The bias against Bigfoot research was now on full display: evidence and experts on one side were disregarded, while an unverified hoax story was swallowed whole because it fit the skeptical storyline.
Perhaps the most egregious example was a 2003 ABC News report (also circulated via AOL News online) that mistakenly mixed together the Wallace claims with the separate Patterson–Gimlin film and got the facts terribly wrong. ABC reported that the famous 1967 film was a hoax “because on his deathbed in 2002 [Ray Wallace] confessed to the film being fake.” This was completely false on multiple levels. Roger Patterson (who filmed the Bigfoot in 1967) died back in 1972, and he never confessed any hoax. Ray Wallace, who died in 2002, had no connection to Patterson’s film, and even he never actually claimed to have faked that footage.
The ABC piece was an astonishing error, essentially a fabrication, yet it aired, further spreading the myth that “the guy who got that famous footage admitted before he died that he faked it.” Bigfoot researchers immediately cried foul, and one contacted ABC News with documentation to request a retraction. The response? According to that researcher, ABC said if they found they were wrong they’d issue a correction, but they never did. The false story remained uncorrected, illustrating a worrying lack of accountability when it came to Bigfoot-related journalism.
The Ray Wallace episode revealed how eagerly many media outlets would embrace a debunking story, even a shaky one, and amplify it without much fact-checking. It cemented a template that would be seen again: skeptical claims get top billing, while rebuttals or nuances are barely mentioned. After 2002–2003, the default media position on Bigfoot was entrenched: the whole subject was viewed as, at best, a lighthearted myth, and at worst a fraud kept alive by the gullible. Any new evidence or pro-Bigfoot research would now face an uphill battle for fair coverage.
Another case study in media selectivity is the treatment of Bob Heironimus’s claims versus Roger Patterson’s own testimony. In 2004, a book by investigator Greg Long (The Making of Bigfoot) introduced Bob Heironimus – a Yakima, WA man – who alleged that he was the figure in the Patterson–Gimlin film, wearing a modified gorilla costume. This claim was one of several over the years by various individuals saying they had worn a Bigfoot suit in that film, but Heironimus’s story caught on in the press due to the book’s profile and some made-for-TV drama. Several media outlets gave considerable attention to Heironimus.
For example, in 2005 he was featured on a prime-time television special (PAX TV’s “Lie Detector”) where he took a polygraph test on-air to prove he was the Bigfoot in the 1967 film. Heironimus passed the TV lie detector according to the show’s polygraph expert, and this was widely touted as a vindication of his story. News headlines and segments at the time leaned into it: “Man Who Wore Bigfoot Suit Passes Lie Detector,” effectively suggesting the famous footage had finally been exposed as a hoax.
What these reports glossed over was the significant context and counter-evidence. Lie detectors, of course, are not admissible in court for good reason – people can pass polygraphs while lying (even serial killer Ted Bundy passed polygraphs, as one analyst dryly noted). The TV show itself acknowledged this by mentioning other notorious liars who “proved” themselves via polygraph. Yet many media discussions treated the polygraph result as a serious blow against the film’s authenticity, while downplaying the problems with Heironimus’s tale: he could not produce the alleged ape suit (supposedly he had kept it in a barn until it rotted away, convenient lack of evidence but he also has stated in the past, that Patterson had collected it also), nor could he or the book’s investigators recreate anything close to the film’s creature on camera. Those critical details got far less attention. Instead, the narrative was set that “the guy in the suit has confessed.” It made for compelling TV and fit the prevailing bias, so it stuck in many viewers’ minds.
Contrast this with how the media have treated the original filmmakers’ accounts.
Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin always maintained that their encounter was genuine and the film shows a real animal. In the late 1960s, Patterson even agreed to take a professional polygraph test himself. In 1968 he was examined by a reputable New York City polygrapher – and Roger Patterson passed his lie detector test, never wavering in claiming he filmed a Bigfoot. This fact was reported in some newspapers at the time, yet it is rarely, if ever, brought up in modern media coverage.
You’ll see Heironimus’s televised polygraph mentioned in articles or skeptical documentaries as a strike against the film, but not a peep about Patterson’s passed polygraph. The omission is telling. It exemplifies how evidence or testimony supporting the Bigfoot researchers’ side often gets buried, while anything casting doubt (no matter how thin) is amplified. Similarly, Bob Gimlin (Patterson’s partner) has told the same story consistently for fifty-plus years and even passed a polygraph of his own regarding the events, but those facts are usually only circulated within Bigfoot research circles, not in the pages of legacy newspapers or science magazines.
In short, the media showed a clear double standard: a dubious confession backed by a TV polygraph made headlines, whereas solid consistent testimony from the original witnesses (backed by a polygraph exam and decades of credibility) was largely ignored. This selective reporting further skewed public perception, reinforcing the notion that the film was a hoax and that anyone still convinced by it must be ignoring the “obvious truth.” The average person watching a news segment or reading a summary could easily come away thinking, “Didn’t someone admit to wearing a suit? Those guys who filmed it must have been in on a prank.” Meanwhile, they’d likely never hear that the filmmakers themselves underwent similar scrutiny and passed.
For example, in 2005 he was featured on a prime-time television special (PAX TV’s “Lie Detector”) where he took a polygraph test on-air to prove he was the Bigfoot in the 1967 film. Heironimus passed the TV lie detector according to the show’s polygraph expert, and this was widely touted as a vindication of his story. News headlines and segments at the time leaned into it: “Man Who Wore Bigfoot Suit Passes Lie Detector,” effectively suggesting the famous footage had finally been exposed as a hoax.
What these reports glossed over was the significant context and counter-evidence. Lie detectors, of course, are not admissible in court for good reason – people can pass polygraphs while lying (even serial killer Ted Bundy passed polygraphs, as one analyst dryly noted). The TV show itself acknowledged this by mentioning other notorious liars who “proved” themselves via polygraph. Yet many media discussions treated the polygraph result as a serious blow against the film’s authenticity, while downplaying the problems with Heironimus’s tale: he could not produce the alleged ape suit (supposedly he had kept it in a barn until it rotted away, convenient lack of evidence but he also has stated in the past, that Patterson had collected it also), nor could he or the book’s investigators recreate anything close to the film’s creature on camera. Those critical details got far less attention. Instead, the narrative was set that “the guy in the suit has confessed.” It made for compelling TV and fit the prevailing bias, so it stuck in many viewers’ minds.
Contrast this with how the media have treated the original filmmakers’ accounts.
Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin always maintained that their encounter was genuine and the film shows a real animal. In the late 1960s, Patterson even agreed to take a professional polygraph test himself. In 1968 he was examined by a reputable New York City polygrapher – and Roger Patterson passed his lie detector test, never wavering in claiming he filmed a Bigfoot. This fact was reported in some newspapers at the time, yet it is rarely, if ever, brought up in modern media coverage.
You’ll see Heironimus’s televised polygraph mentioned in articles or skeptical documentaries as a strike against the film, but not a peep about Patterson’s passed polygraph. The omission is telling. It exemplifies how evidence or testimony supporting the Bigfoot researchers’ side often gets buried, while anything casting doubt (no matter how thin) is amplified. Similarly, Bob Gimlin (Patterson’s partner) has told the same story consistently for fifty-plus years and even passed a polygraph of his own regarding the events, but those facts are usually only circulated within Bigfoot research circles, not in the pages of legacy newspapers or science magazines.
In short, the media showed a clear double standard: a dubious confession backed by a TV polygraph made headlines, whereas solid consistent testimony from the original witnesses (backed by a polygraph exam and decades of credibility) was largely ignored. This selective reporting further skewed public perception, reinforcing the notion that the film was a hoax and that anyone still convinced by it must be ignoring the “obvious truth.” The average person watching a news segment or reading a summary could easily come away thinking, “Didn’t someone admit to wearing a suit? Those guys who filmed it must have been in on a prank.” Meanwhile, they’d likely never hear that the filmmakers themselves underwent similar scrutiny and passed.
In recent years, the pattern has continued with a twist: media coverage now often seizes on academic-sounding studies that claim to explain away Bigfoot – sometimes overstating what the research actually concludes. A prime example occurred just in the past couple of years with a study by data scientist Floe Foxon that examined the geography of Bigfoot sightings.
A black bear standing on its hind legs can resemble a towering Bigfoot figure from a distance. Several modern studies suggest many Sasquatch reports may actually be misidentified wildlife..
Foxon’s paper, titled “Bigfoot: If it’s there, could it be a bear?”, analyzed statistical correlations between reported Bigfoot sightings and populations of black bears across North America. It was a serious attempt to apply data science to the mystery, and it found a striking correlation: regions with more bears tend to also have more Bigfoot reports. Foxon suggested that many sightings of Bigfoot might be misidentified bears, especially black bears that occasionally stand upright and can appear uncannily human-like at a glance. This is a reasonable hypothesis indeed, as others had made similar arguments before, but what’s important is how the media presented Foxon’s findings.
In early 2023 and again when the study was published in 2024, headline after headline declared Bigfoot essentially solved. Science news sites and mainstream outlets alike boiled it down to “Bigfoot? It’s probably just bears,” often implying that the enduring mystery had been neatly explained by one data analysis. For instance, Phys.org ran the headline “Data scientist suggests many Bigfoot sightings may be bear sightings,” and concluded in no uncertain terms that “the evidence strongly suggests that most if not all Bigfoot sightings are actually people catching a glimpse of a wild black bear”. Other outlets echoed this conclusive tone. It made for great clickbait: science had debunked Bigfoot with statistics!
However, this was another case of portraying a study as more definitive than it really was. Floe Foxon himself was careful to state that his study “doesn’t prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist”, only that a significant number of reports could be cases of mistaken identity. The statistical correlation is intriguing, but by no means does it cover “all” Bigfoot reports as outliers and counterpoints exist (for example, sightings of something ape-like where black bear populations are essentially zero, and other sighting details that don’t fit a bear’s behavior). Moreover, correlation is not causation; bears and Bigfoot reports could both be plentiful in certain wilderness areas simply because those areas have lots of wilderness (something Foxon did try to account for with human population and forest cover variables, but still). These nuances were mostly lost in the media coverage.
Instead, the takeaway served to the public was that scientists had basically proven Bigfoot to be a misidentification. The study’s methodological constraints like assuming all reports are honest mistakes rather than some other explanation – received little mention. And notably, when Bigfoot researchers pointed out flaws (for example, that eyewitnesses often describe details that don’t match a bear, or that the model can’t explain tracks and other physical evidence), those critiques didn’t get traction in mainstream venues. The legacy media preference was clear: a skeptical study, especially one with academic credentials, gets amplified and rarely scrutinized with the same vigor as any pro-Bigfoot evidence would be. In effect, a correlation study was treated as a debunking tool, much as Ray Wallace’s wooden feet were treated as a smoking gun, in both cases, the media arguably overcorrected toward the skeptical viewpoint, oversimplifying the story for the sake of closure.
A black bear standing on its hind legs can resemble a towering Bigfoot figure from a distance. Several modern studies suggest many Sasquatch reports may actually be misidentified wildlife..
Foxon’s paper, titled “Bigfoot: If it’s there, could it be a bear?”, analyzed statistical correlations between reported Bigfoot sightings and populations of black bears across North America. It was a serious attempt to apply data science to the mystery, and it found a striking correlation: regions with more bears tend to also have more Bigfoot reports. Foxon suggested that many sightings of Bigfoot might be misidentified bears, especially black bears that occasionally stand upright and can appear uncannily human-like at a glance. This is a reasonable hypothesis indeed, as others had made similar arguments before, but what’s important is how the media presented Foxon’s findings.
In early 2023 and again when the study was published in 2024, headline after headline declared Bigfoot essentially solved. Science news sites and mainstream outlets alike boiled it down to “Bigfoot? It’s probably just bears,” often implying that the enduring mystery had been neatly explained by one data analysis. For instance, Phys.org ran the headline “Data scientist suggests many Bigfoot sightings may be bear sightings,” and concluded in no uncertain terms that “the evidence strongly suggests that most if not all Bigfoot sightings are actually people catching a glimpse of a wild black bear”. Other outlets echoed this conclusive tone. It made for great clickbait: science had debunked Bigfoot with statistics!
However, this was another case of portraying a study as more definitive than it really was. Floe Foxon himself was careful to state that his study “doesn’t prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist”, only that a significant number of reports could be cases of mistaken identity. The statistical correlation is intriguing, but by no means does it cover “all” Bigfoot reports as outliers and counterpoints exist (for example, sightings of something ape-like where black bear populations are essentially zero, and other sighting details that don’t fit a bear’s behavior). Moreover, correlation is not causation; bears and Bigfoot reports could both be plentiful in certain wilderness areas simply because those areas have lots of wilderness (something Foxon did try to account for with human population and forest cover variables, but still). These nuances were mostly lost in the media coverage.
Instead, the takeaway served to the public was that scientists had basically proven Bigfoot to be a misidentification. The study’s methodological constraints like assuming all reports are honest mistakes rather than some other explanation – received little mention. And notably, when Bigfoot researchers pointed out flaws (for example, that eyewitnesses often describe details that don’t match a bear, or that the model can’t explain tracks and other physical evidence), those critiques didn’t get traction in mainstream venues. The legacy media preference was clear: a skeptical study, especially one with academic credentials, gets amplified and rarely scrutinized with the same vigor as any pro-Bigfoot evidence would be. In effect, a correlation study was treated as a debunking tool, much as Ray Wallace’s wooden feet were treated as a smoking gun, in both cases, the media arguably overcorrected toward the skeptical viewpoint, oversimplifying the story for the sake of closure.
From the 1960s to today, one constant has been the outsized role of legacy media outlets, major newspapers, wire services, and TV networks in shaping public opinion on Bigfoot. As we’ve seen, these outlets have often exhibited a strong skeptical bias, especially in the past two decades. When The New York Times proclaims that Bigfoot was “created” by a hoaxer, or when ABC News erroneously reports a fake confession, it carries enormous weight. Such stories get syndicated, repeated on talk shows, and enter the cultural zeitgeist. By contrast, when evidence emerges or hoax claims are debunked, those corrections rarely enjoy the same reach. After the 2002 Wallace media blitz, many people simply accepted as common knowledge that “Bigfoot was a proven hoax”, a misunderstanding directly traceable to how legacy media framed the story. Even today, you’ll hear folks confidently cite a “deathbed confession” by Roger Patterson (which never happened) as the reason they dismiss Bigfoot ,a classic case of misinformation propagated by poor reporting.
The media’s skeptical tone has not gone unnoticed by researchers. Veteran investigators have accused journalists of ignoring evidence and even common sense in their rush to ridicule. The BFRO (Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization) lambasted the 2002 coverage, noting how reporters kept insisting “there is no evidence” for Bigfoot while simultaneously hailing flimsy hoax claims as definitive proof against it. Indeed, it’s a telling irony: thousands of footprint casts, documented sightings, and even frame 352 of the Patterson film (arguably among the most studied pieces of footage in cryptozoology) are dismissed as “not evidence,” yet a pair of wooden stompers or an unverifiable tale gets treated as credible. This asymmetry in standards speaks to an underlying bias.
Another influence of legacy media is the cascade effect. Once a prestigious outlet or authority figure takes a stance, others often fall in line. The New York Times front-page story in 2003 not only misquoted scientists which in any other context would be a journalistic scandal, but it effectively gave permission to other news organizations to treat Bigfoot believers with open condescension. If America’s “newspaper of record” was calling the Sasquatch search a bunch of foolishness, local papers and TV stations could comfortably adopt a similar tone without fear of seeming unfair, after all, they were echoing the Times. This top-down setting of narrative can be very powerful. It has contributed to what might be called the “snicker factor” any time Bigfoot is mentioned in mainstream newsrooms. Journalists, conscious of not wanting to appear gullible, err heavily on the side of disbelief often to the point of constructing a story that was never actually confirmed, as happened with ABC’s conflation of Ray Wallace with Patterson’s film.
None of this is to say that healthy skepticism is bad. On the contrary, it’s essential in journalism. The issue highlighted here is when skepticism mutates into bias, where one side of an issue consistently gets the benefit of the doubt (or unearned spotlight) while the other is reflexively marginalized. In the case of Bigfoot, legacy media have, through repeated missteps and slanted storytelling, fostered a public mindset that anything Sasquatch-related is unworthy of serious consideration. It’s a self-reinforcing loop: the more the media mocks Bigfoot, the more the topic becomes a joke, and the less incentive any serious journalist must treat it fairly.
Yet, despite decades of biased coverage, interest in Bigfoot persists among the public. In recent years, a proliferation of podcasts, YouTube channels, and independent documentaries – free from traditional editorial gatekeeping – have given Bigfoot researchers a platform to present their case without the usual media filter. And interestingly, even some mainstream outlets have begun to acknowledge past mistakes. Occasionally you’ll see a more balanced article or a news segment that admits, “Well, we don’t know everything, the legend continues.” But these are exceptions. By and large, the legacy of legacy media (pun intended) has been to engrain deep skepticism toward Bigfoot research.
Conclusion: Since the days of the Patterson–Gimlin film in 1967, U.S. media coverage of Bigfoot has journeyed from open-minded curiosity to near outright dismissal. The tone shift over the decades, fueled by episodes of misinformation, like the Ray Wallace saga, and one-sided reporting on hoax claims and studies has undeniably influenced public perception. Ask an average American why they think Bigfoot isn’t real, and you’ll likely hear one of the media-driven talking points in response (e.g., “someone admitted it was a hoax,” “scientists proved it was just bears,” or “there’s no evidence”). Each of those points has a kernel of truth wrapped in a cocoon of exaggeration or omission.
Bigfoot research, for its part, continues in the shadows of this media bias. Serious investigators still collect data, analyze footprints, and even publish papers, often to be met with a collective eyeroll from the press. But understanding this history of coverage is important. It reminds us that sometimes the narrative we’re fed is less about the facts on the ground and more about the framework through which those facts are filtered. In the case of Sasquatch, the framework has long been tilted against it. As consumers of media, recognizing that bias is the first step in approaching the topic with a genuinely open mind, whether one is ultimately a skeptic, a believer, or simply curious. The truth about Bigfoot, whatever it may be, deserves to be pursued with honesty and rigor. When conclusive evidence ever does emerge, one can only hope the media will rise to the occasion and report it fairly, no snickering soundtrack required.
The media’s skeptical tone has not gone unnoticed by researchers. Veteran investigators have accused journalists of ignoring evidence and even common sense in their rush to ridicule. The BFRO (Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization) lambasted the 2002 coverage, noting how reporters kept insisting “there is no evidence” for Bigfoot while simultaneously hailing flimsy hoax claims as definitive proof against it. Indeed, it’s a telling irony: thousands of footprint casts, documented sightings, and even frame 352 of the Patterson film (arguably among the most studied pieces of footage in cryptozoology) are dismissed as “not evidence,” yet a pair of wooden stompers or an unverifiable tale gets treated as credible. This asymmetry in standards speaks to an underlying bias.
Another influence of legacy media is the cascade effect. Once a prestigious outlet or authority figure takes a stance, others often fall in line. The New York Times front-page story in 2003 not only misquoted scientists which in any other context would be a journalistic scandal, but it effectively gave permission to other news organizations to treat Bigfoot believers with open condescension. If America’s “newspaper of record” was calling the Sasquatch search a bunch of foolishness, local papers and TV stations could comfortably adopt a similar tone without fear of seeming unfair, after all, they were echoing the Times. This top-down setting of narrative can be very powerful. It has contributed to what might be called the “snicker factor” any time Bigfoot is mentioned in mainstream newsrooms. Journalists, conscious of not wanting to appear gullible, err heavily on the side of disbelief often to the point of constructing a story that was never actually confirmed, as happened with ABC’s conflation of Ray Wallace with Patterson’s film.
None of this is to say that healthy skepticism is bad. On the contrary, it’s essential in journalism. The issue highlighted here is when skepticism mutates into bias, where one side of an issue consistently gets the benefit of the doubt (or unearned spotlight) while the other is reflexively marginalized. In the case of Bigfoot, legacy media have, through repeated missteps and slanted storytelling, fostered a public mindset that anything Sasquatch-related is unworthy of serious consideration. It’s a self-reinforcing loop: the more the media mocks Bigfoot, the more the topic becomes a joke, and the less incentive any serious journalist must treat it fairly.
Yet, despite decades of biased coverage, interest in Bigfoot persists among the public. In recent years, a proliferation of podcasts, YouTube channels, and independent documentaries – free from traditional editorial gatekeeping – have given Bigfoot researchers a platform to present their case without the usual media filter. And interestingly, even some mainstream outlets have begun to acknowledge past mistakes. Occasionally you’ll see a more balanced article or a news segment that admits, “Well, we don’t know everything, the legend continues.” But these are exceptions. By and large, the legacy of legacy media (pun intended) has been to engrain deep skepticism toward Bigfoot research.
Conclusion: Since the days of the Patterson–Gimlin film in 1967, U.S. media coverage of Bigfoot has journeyed from open-minded curiosity to near outright dismissal. The tone shift over the decades, fueled by episodes of misinformation, like the Ray Wallace saga, and one-sided reporting on hoax claims and studies has undeniably influenced public perception. Ask an average American why they think Bigfoot isn’t real, and you’ll likely hear one of the media-driven talking points in response (e.g., “someone admitted it was a hoax,” “scientists proved it was just bears,” or “there’s no evidence”). Each of those points has a kernel of truth wrapped in a cocoon of exaggeration or omission.
Bigfoot research, for its part, continues in the shadows of this media bias. Serious investigators still collect data, analyze footprints, and even publish papers, often to be met with a collective eyeroll from the press. But understanding this history of coverage is important. It reminds us that sometimes the narrative we’re fed is less about the facts on the ground and more about the framework through which those facts are filtered. In the case of Sasquatch, the framework has long been tilted against it. As consumers of media, recognizing that bias is the first step in approaching the topic with a genuinely open mind, whether one is ultimately a skeptic, a believer, or simply curious. The truth about Bigfoot, whatever it may be, deserves to be pursued with honesty and rigor. When conclusive evidence ever does emerge, one can only hope the media will rise to the occasion and report it fairly, no snickering soundtrack required.
Till Next Time,
Squatch-D
Squatch-D
RSS Feed
