A self-described journalist recently published a story about a scientist who is a participant in the intelligence community as well as a television personality prone to making dubious statements. It was revealed the scientist at the least contributed to the UAP Task Force. That contribution may have been substantial.
|He makes his living on the evening news|
Other reporters - journalists, they like to be considered - who were credited with breaking the AAWSAP story fully acknowledge its context was spun for optimum acceptance by the public. Selective omission was standard operations. One of these reporters, who at one point asserted he was purposely misled by his otherwise informed sources, is appearing with said sources at a UFO conference, moderating what is billed as a government secrecy panel.
Unfortunately, these are not isolated events, but arguably make up the bulk of some of the most popularly embraced aspects of news pertaining to the Pentagon UFO program. In yet another instance, a complaint apparently filed on behalf of a self-described UFO project VIP to the DOD Office of Inspector General was quoted by a reporter for months - without publishing the document.
More recently, the complaint was published with redactions. It was not accompanied by a chain of custody, explanation for the redactions, or any info about how decisions were reached to previously withhold and eventually release the document.
Besides what should be the obvious concerns about the reliability of information that is inherent to circumstances as described above, it should also be considered that the timing of the news drops is likely not arbitrary. There seems to be a process, whatever it may be, that dictates how and when reporters select to omit and provide information. They are almost entirely not reporting that process, which should not go unnoticed.