3 ms·

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 "fo

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.)

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.)