The Liberation Times — biased journalism or a source of trust?
This article includes a piece originally published by Liberation Times and authored by Christopher Sharp on June 22, 2023. The material used in this article is for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and educational review, and is not intended to infringe upon the copyright holder’s rights. This use of copyrighted material is protected under the “Fair Use” provisions of Title 17, Section 107 of United States law, which allows for the reproduction of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary, criticism, teaching, and research. Any further use of this material should be done in accordance with the appropriate copyright laws. A link to the original article is included in this critical review to ensure that no loss of monetization is felt by the Liberation Times.
Recently, (June 22, 2023) Christopher Sharp penned the below article which I feel is filled with bias, leading comments, and pushes a narrative assumed to be the personal belief of the author.
In the world of journalism, neutrality is paramount. As journalists, their responsibility is to present factual information to the public without embedding their personal beliefs or inclinations into the narrative. However, not all news outlets adhere to this standard, which can result in biased reporting. Today, I examine an article from the Liberation Times, highlighting instances of bias and demonstrating how it could have been written with an unbiased approach.
The original article from the Liberation Times was written by Christopher Sharp on June 22, 2023. It covers a statement made by the Department of Defense (DoD) spokesperson, Susan Gough, regarding the activities of the Pentagon’s UFO office, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).
________________________________________________________________
Here is the original article:
Written by Christopher Sharp — 22 June 2023
The Pentagon is unable to confirm or deny whether its UFO office, known as the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), has discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any current or former U.S. programs have had possession or reverse-engineered materials from non-human intelligences or unknown origin.
Department of Defense (DoD) spokesperson, Susan Gough, told Liberation Times:
“To date, AARO has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently.”
But when pushed, whether the term “extraterrestrial” could extend to materials of unknown origin or non-human intelligences (a term used specifically by whistleblower David Grusch), Gough declined to go beyond the existing on-record statements provided by the DoD.
Liberation Times has offered the DoD an opportunity to comment further on its stance regarding such terminology — as of publication, there is no indication that such a move is likely.
Although noteworthy that the DoD refuses to comment further, this is not an admission that programs dealing with materials of unknown or non-human origin have been discovered.
There may be a variety of reasons for using the term “extraterrestrial”, a term which means ‘of or from outside the earth or its atmosphere.’
But as a department highly attuned to the power of language and its ramifications, it is essential not to overlook the significance of the DoD’s lack of acknowledgement of Grusch’s specifically chosen words when responding to his allegations.
Also of note, Gough confirmed that the AARO has approached alleged Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)-related programs mentioned by individuals who have come forward as part of a congressionally-mandated historical review — increasing the possibility that team members have encountered exotic materials.
And when investigating such, programs, the DoD spokesperson confirmed that the AARO has not been denied access:
“AARO has been rigorously investigating alleged programs mentioned by individuals who have come forward as part of the congressionally-mandated historical review.
“To date, AARO has not been denied access to any United States government program, past or present, during the course of its work.”
The AARO, under the leadership of Director Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, lacks Title 50 authorities.
As a result, the AARO cannot access information pertaining to covert actions and most intelligence operations conducted by agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, or National Security Agency without being given explicit authority and access.
However, members of the AARO’s staff can gain access if they meet individual security standards.
Susan Gough suggested this potential issue had not impacted the AARO’s mission, stating:
“By law, AARO may receive all UAP-related information, including any classified national security information involving military, intelligence, and intelligence-related activities, at all levels of classification regardless of any restrictive access controls, special access programs, or compartmented access programs.
“Moreover, there is no restriction to AARO receiving any past or present UAP-related information, regardless of the organizational affiliation of the original classification authority within DoD, the Intelligence Community, or any other U.S. government department or agency.”
Directly addressing Title 50 authorities, Gough added that such authorities are unrelated to the AARO’s ability to receive all UAP-related information through authorised disclosures:
“The issue of potential supplemental statutory authorities for AARO, whether codified in title 10 or title 50 of the United States Code, will be considered as part of its mission requirements. This issue, however, is separate and wholly unrelated to AARO’s unimpeded ability to receive all UAP-related information through authorized disclosures.”
DoD spokesperson Susan Gough is a figure regarded as the U.S. government’s gatekeeper when it comes to the UAP topic.
Liberation Times asked whether there is currently a policy, either within the DoD and/or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), that, in effect, any inquiries related to UAP will be directed to and/or coordinated with Gough. The Pentagon spokesperson responded:
“It is DoD policy that all interactions with the news media at the Department level, including press queries, are coordinated with the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Within the Defense Press Operations office in OSD(PA), public affairs specialists are assigned portfolio areas.
“Amongst their many duties, public affairs specialists are responsible for coordinating DoD responses to news media queries on subjects that fall into their portfolio area. My portfolio includes UAP, AARO, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security, as well as other issues and offices.
“Responses to queries on UAP matters are coordinated with all the relevant stakeholders in DoD, and may include coordination with other federal agencies, depending on the nature of the query.
“I refer you to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence regarding their public affairs policies.”
Of note, Gough’s portfolio contains the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security (OUSDI&S), to which the AARO currently reports.
Sources have told Liberation Times that the AARO, which, up until now, has reported to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security, is not trusted by numerous whistleblowers.
The issue may stem from the AARO’s proximity to the OUSDI&S, which has previously been criticised for allegedly persecuting whistleblowers.
The former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program and UAP whistleblower, Lue Elizondo, has previously commented:
‘The [O]USDI is the one single office that has continuously lied about this topic and persecuted whistleblowers.’
Of note the National Defense Authorization Act of 2023 means that the AARO should report directly to Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kathleen Hicks, and the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence on all operational and security matters relating to the AARO.
However, there is no indication that this has been implemented yet, meaning up until now the AARO still reports on such matters to OUSDI&S.
Here’s a new (not attributed to C. Sharp) version of the article where I’ve aimed to remove the perceived bias with suggested changes for the original article being incorporated into this new version.
The Pentagon has not yet confirmed nor denied whether its UFO office, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), has found verifiable information to substantiate claims about U.S. programs possessing or reverse-engineering materials from non-human intelligences or unknown origins.
Susan Gough, spokesperson for the Department of Defense (DoD), informed us:
“Currently, there is no verifiable information to confirm claims that any programs have existed or exist regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials.”
When asked if the term “extraterrestrial” could encompass materials of unknown origin or non-human intelligences (terminology used by whistleblower David Grusch), Gough chose not to elaborate on the existing DoD statements.
We offered the DoD a chance to comment further on the use of this terminology. However, no additional clarification has been provided.
The DoD’s refusal to comment further is not an acknowledgment of programs dealing with materials of unknown or non-human origin.
The term “extraterrestrial” has a variety of implications, which could potentially be the reason for its use.
Gough confirmed that the AARO has looked into alleged Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)-related programs mentioned by individuals as part of a congressionally-mandated historical review. This development could indicate that team members have encountered unusual materials.
Gough confirmed that the AARO has been investigating these alleged programs and hasn’t been denied access to any government programs during the course of its work.
The AARO, led by Director Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, doesn’t possess Title 50 authorities, which limits the access they have to information about covert actions and intelligence operations conducted by agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, or National Security Agency. Still, AARO staff can gain access if they meet individual security standards.
Gough suggested that this limitation hasn’t affected the AARO’s mission, and that they can receive all UAP-related information. The possibility of additional statutory authorities for AARO is under consideration.
As DoD spokesperson, Gough is often the contact for questions related to the UAP topic.
We asked if there is a policy within the DoD or the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that directs all UAP inquiries to Gough. Gough responded:
“Public affairs specialists in the Defense Press Operations office coordinate DoD responses to news media queries. My portfolio includes UAP, AARO, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security, among others. Responses to UAP matters involve coordination with relevant stakeholders in DoD and potentially other federal agencies.”
Some sources report distrust of the AARO from several whistleblowers, which might relate to its close association with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security (OUSDI&S), previously criticized for its alleged treatment of whistleblowers.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2023 stipulates that the AARO should report directly to Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kathleen Hicks, and the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence regarding all operational and security matters. The implementation of this directive has not yet been confirmed. Currently, the AARO reports to the OUSDI&S.
_____________________________________________________________
Original Excerpt: “But when pushed, whether the term “extraterrestrial” could extend to materials of unknown origin or non-human intelligences (a term used specifically by whistleblower David Grusch), Gough declined to go beyond the existing on-record statements provided by the DoD.”
Biased wording: “But when pushed”
Unbiased revision: “When asked”
The term “pushed” implies that the journalist had to apply undue pressure to receive a response, subtly suggesting that the DoD was being uncooperative or hiding something. By changing “pushed” to “asked,” we remove this implication.
Original Excerpt: “Although noteworthy that the DoD refuses to comment further, this is not an admission that programs dealing with materials of unknown or non-human origin have been discovered.”
Biased wording: “refuses to comment further”
Unbiased revision: “hasn’t commented further”
By using the term “refuses,” the author insinuates an active, possibly stubborn, unwillingness on the part of the DoD to provide more information, thus imbuing the reporting with a sense of confrontation or secrecy. Replacing it with “hasn’t commented further” removes this negative connotation.
Original Excerpt: “Sources have told Liberation Times that the AARO, which, up until now, has reported to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security, is not trusted by numerous whistleblowers.”
Biased wording: “is not trusted”
Unbiased revision: “has been met with skepticism”
The statement “is not trusted” presents a strong bias, implying a complete lack of credibility. In contrast, “has been met with skepticism” suggests some whistleblowers question AARO’s credibility, which is a softer and more accurate representation.
Original Excerpt: “The issue may stem from the AARO’s proximity to the OUSDI&S, which has previously been criticized for allegedly persecuting whistleblowers.”
Biased wording: “persecuting whistleblowers”
Unbiased revision: “has previously been criticized for its alleged treatment of whistleblowers”
The word “persecuting” suggests an extreme, targeted campaign against whistleblowers, implying a sense of villainy or malevolence that isn’t supported by factual evidence in the article. A more neutral and accurate wording might be “its alleged treatment of whistleblowers,” which conveys the criticism without unnecessary drama.
Original Excerpt: “However, there is no indication that this has been implemented yet, meaning up until now the AARO still reports on such matters to OUSDI&S.”
Biased wording: “there is no indication that this has been implemented yet”
Unbiased revision: “the implementation of this directive has not yet been confirmed”
The phrase “there is no indication” insinuates a lack of transparency or accountability. By changing it to “the implementation of this directive has not yet been confirmed,” the article states the facts without implying misconduct or negligence.
Original Excerpt: “DoD spokesperson Susan Gough is a figure regarded as the U.S. government’s gatekeeper when it comes to the UAP topic.”
Biased wording: “the U.S. government’s gatekeeper”
Unbiased revision: “often the contact for questions related to the UAP topic”
The term “gatekeeper” implies control and restrictiveness, suggesting that Gough deliberately withholds information. Replacing it with “often the contact for questions” portrays her role more accurately, without the negative connotation.
Christopher Sharp’s writing style, as showcased in the Liberation Times article dated June 22, 2023, illustrates a clear departure from the principles of unbiased journalism. The language used by Sharp tends to insinuate undisclosed motivations or actions on the part of the entities discussed, which can lead to an inaccurate portrayal of events.
Sharp’s choice of words often carries unnecessary implications or connotations that may mislead the reader. For example, the use of terms like “pushed,” “refuses,” “persecuting whistleblowers,” and “the U.S. government’s gatekeeper” all contribute to creating a narrative of secrecy and defensiveness that isn’t objectively supported by the facts presented. The choice to characterize the AARO’s actions or the responses from the DoD spokesperson in such a way can prompt a sense of skepticism or mistrust that may not be warranted based on the evidence provided.
This bias skews the reader’s perception and does not reflect the neutrality and fairness that should be the foundation of any journalistic endeavor. It not only misrepresents the event but can also contribute to damaging the reputation of the individuals or organizations discussed in the article, based on the subjective interpretation of the author rather than the available factual evidence.
Unfortunately, this demonstrates a significant issue with the Liberation Times as a news source. When a publication permits or overlooks such biased reporting, it compromises its reliability as a trustworthy source of information. As consumers of news, it’s crucial to understand that bias can distort the truth and alter our understanding of events. Due to these concerns, readers should approach reports from the Liberation Times with caution and seek to corroborate information with other, more balanced sources.
