3 ms·

That mintpress site is shady af, from zero transparency into funding sources to the impossible-to-deny red flag of attributing stories to writers who immediatel

That mintpress site is shady af, from zero transparency into funding sources to the impossible-to-deny red flag of attributing stories to writers who immediately deny all involvement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News And trying to triangulate the truth somewhere between them and Bellingcat works about as well as a Tesla trying to triangulate between the highway exit and continuing in its lane. As but one example: either Assad dropped chemical weapons on his citizens, or the rebels did. The former is supported by famous fans of US imperialism like the UN, Doctors’ without Borders, Amnesty, the EU. and the reality that Assad was generally known to posses those weapons and delivery capabilities. Taking the other side are Putin, Assad, and, probably, Glen Greenwald.

mandmandam 5y ago
I consider MPN far less shady than Fox, CBS, NBC, WaPo, or the NYT. It's really nice to have a news source that applies a modicum of skepticism to America's "foreign policy". From your link: > "BuzzFeed News in 2013 described the site as having "an agenda that lines up, from its sympathy with the Syrian regime to its hostility to Sunni Saudi Arabia, with that of the Islamic Republic of Iran." If we're talking about bias; how biased is it to claim that since MPN don't agree with regime change in Syria, and they don't go along with America's (twisted beyond belief) "friendliness" towards SA, they must be working for Iran? And, isn't it weird that the wiki page makes no attempt to link to any of MPN's responses to such claims? Looking over a recent one makes a lot of the claims made in your comment and in the linked wiki page look ridiculous - https://www.mintpressnews.com/a-biased-newsguard-honors-mintpress-with-red-rating-heres-our-point-by-point-response/258499/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/a-biased-newsguard-honors-mint...
- mrobot 5y ago
  Yes, i don't think people realize just how ruthlessly enforced alignment with US foreign policy goals is on Wikipedia. In matters of foreign governments and current events related to war, Wikipedia is essentially a propaganda page of the CIA. Very few editors control exercise real control over the foreign policy information on Wikipedia. It is not the democratic neutral source that people see it as, and that's part of why it's a good propaganda tool. It is kind of a Trojan horse into your trust boundaries. If you watch some of the edit wars when a big event happens in the news, you can often see very useful information (with sources) being thrown away. It's not really possible to get information on there that conflicts with the current military goals, because that would upset the mission.
  - 6510 5y ago
    In a truly silly defense: Wikipedia is a wonderful resource! Yes, useful information is "thrown away" right in front of your eyes often enough. You click on the user name. You look at his other editorializings, what else are you not suppose to know about? Who else is enforcing the agenda? They have edit history too! Enjoy! (There are more tricks but if disclosed they could patch those.)

mandmandam 5y ago

I consider MPN far less shady than Fox, CBS, NBC, WaPo, or the NYT. It's really nice to have a news source that applies a modicum of skepticism to America's "foreign policy". From your link: > "BuzzFeed News in 2013 described the site as having "an agenda that lines up, from its sympathy with the Syrian regime to its hostility to Sunni Saudi Arabia, with that of the Islamic Republic of Iran." If we're talking about bias; how biased is it to claim that since MPN don't agree with regime change in Syria, and they don't go along with America's (twisted beyond belief) "friendliness" towards SA, they must be working for Iran? And, isn't it weird that the wiki page makes no attempt to link to any of MPN's responses to such claims? Looking over a recent one makes a lot of the claims made in your comment and in the linked wiki page look ridiculous - https://www.mintpressnews.com/a-biased-newsguard-honors-mintpress-with-red-rating-heres-our-point-by-point-response/258499/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/a-biased-newsguard-honors-mint...

mrobot 5y ago
Yes, i don't think people realize just how ruthlessly enforced alignment with US foreign policy goals is on Wikipedia. In matters of foreign governments and current events related to war, Wikipedia is essentially a propaganda page of the CIA. Very few editors control exercise real control over the foreign policy information on Wikipedia. It is not the democratic neutral source that people see it as, and that's part of why it's a good propaganda tool. It is kind of a Trojan horse into your trust boundaries. If you watch some of the edit wars when a big event happens in the news, you can often see very useful information (with sources) being thrown away. It's not really possible to get information on there that conflicts with the current military goals, because that would upset the mission.
- 6510 5y ago
  In a truly silly defense: Wikipedia is a wonderful resource! Yes, useful information is "thrown away" right in front of your eyes often enough. You click on the user name. You look at his other editorializings, what else are you not suppose to know about? Who else is enforcing the agenda? They have edit history too! Enjoy! (There are more tricks but if disclosed they could patch those.)