you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

A site or source has to earn the credit before it can be discredited.

You can attack the one making the critique all you want and it doesn’t establish actual credibility for the original source. The grayzone’s weaknesses in misleading coverage and sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes is well noted in academic journals and other sources cited the references on their Wikipedia page.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    That would be literally devastating if I had cited Wikipedia itself instead of using it as a way to point you to a long list of citations from far more authoritative sources without wasting my time typing them all out again.

    Good effort though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    I’ve been watching the Five Eyes governments and Anglosphere corporate media try to squelch The Grayzone for years.

    It would be devastating if you were to read Inventing Reality or Manufacturing Consent.

    You know who else was on RT? Chris Hedges. Why was he there? Because he was right about Iraq’s supposed WMDs, so corporate media permanently shunned him. Meanwhile people who got it wrong, like Anderson Cooper, are still prominent corporate media figures, because they’ve proven to be reliable lap dogs. I mean, Cooper interned at the CIA.

    Corporate media obviously aren’t going to want to correct their coverage of Victoria Nuland & co’s Maidan coup.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Actually, it still wouldn't have been devastating because it continues to ignore the credibility of The Grayzone as the subject matter of the comment thread. It's just doubling down on the original tangent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    I’m completely appreciate that it’s the reason I put it in italics, I was trying to convey sarcasm but acknowledge that I may have been far too subtle.

    I find it incredibly fascinating that in the over nine hours, since this has been posted, nobody has taken up the opportunity to post another source that backs up this reporting they just continue to attack the critique

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    It’s not like this was a secret trial. Reuters, Oct. ’23: Ukrainian court sentences ex-police officers over 2014 Maidan shootings

    We’ve known this was a US-backed coup for nearly a decade. The story has been beaten to death.

    .
    Our government and our corporate media fed us a load of bullshit about it being an organic “color revolution” for “freedom and democracy.” It’s what they always do. The blueprint of regime change operations

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Sheesh. The only credible outlet was Reuters, and it was a nothingburger.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)