11 ms·

I reject the framing of The Gray Zone as anti-war. Anti-US imperialism sure, but not anti-war. They have no problem minimizing the suffering of millions at the

I reject the framing of The Gray Zone as anti-war. Anti-US imperialism sure, but not anti-war. They have no problem minimizing the suffering of millions at the hands of some of the most brutal regimes on the planet. Calling them anti-war is like calling Alex Jones a scientist.

davidgerard 5y ago
I would prefer an "anti-war" site without a track record of making shit up. That's why Gray Zone is deprecated on Wikipedia, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_Grayzone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...
- agul29 5y ago
  It's funny how this level of scrutinization only applies to journalists who are critical of US/NATO foreign policy of neocolonialism and US empire expansionism & hegemony, but never to organizations like BBC, CNN, NYT who have been exposed to churn out some of the biggest lies, especially against US propaganda targets.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    It's a remarkably consistent phenomenon, on WP and elsewhere. This page [0] goes some way to showing just how deeply biased Wikipedia has acted against Grayzone and others like it: [0] https://mronline.org/2020/06/15/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/ https://mronline.org/2020/06/15/wikipedia-formally-censors-t...
Synaesthesia 5y ago
Their articles are generally really well researched and they actually call for an end to all war in Syria. Thy're consistently anti-war.
- tgv 5y ago
  It looks as if they’re consistently anti-US: not a single word against China, but each shady remark that casts some doubt on US policy gets the floor.
  - fsagx 5y ago
    They are certainly left or hard-left and are very critical of US, NATO, and Israel. If they view themselves as activist-journalists, it seems a logical choice to focus their criticism on the US, where (in theory) they have some chance of moving policy through public opinion. There is approximately zero chance of their reporting swaying Xi, Putin, or Assad. US adversaries get plenty of unfavorable reporting in more mainstream channels.
    - simonh 5y ago
      They're a political pressure group. That's not necessarily a criticism, they can publish whatever they like, but they aren't anti war, and they aren't against a lot of things they report on. They're only against them and only report on them when their political enemies, the US and the west generally do them regardless of context or provocation or any broader circumstances. Outside that, they don't give a crap what anyone does. Pretending otherwise is I'm afraid rather naive. To be fair, they say so quite clearly, check out the editor's profile page on the site itself.
      - mandmandam 5y ago
        What? Here's the editor-in-chief's page that I see: > "Mnar Adley is founder, CEO and editor in chief of MintPress News, and is also a regular speaker on responsible journalism, sexism, neoconservativism within the media and journalism start-ups. She started her career as an independent multimedia journalist covering Midwest and national politics while focusing on civil liberties and social justice issues posting her reporting and exclusive interviews on her blog MintPress, which she later turned MintPress into the global news source it is today. In 2009, Adley also became the first American woman to wear the hijab to anchor/report the news in American media." Nothing there so far as I can see about how "they're only against them and only report on them when their political enemies, the US and the west generally do them regardless of context or provocation or any broader circumstances"? ... Are you referring to some other page maybe?

davidgerard 5y ago

I would prefer an "anti-war" site without a track record of making shit up. That's why Gray Zone is deprecated on Wikipedia, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_Grayzone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...

agul29 5y ago
It's funny how this level of scrutinization only applies to journalists who are critical of US/NATO foreign policy of neocolonialism and US empire expansionism & hegemony, but never to organizations like BBC, CNN, NYT who have been exposed to churn out some of the biggest lies, especially against US propaganda targets.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  It's a remarkably consistent phenomenon, on WP and elsewhere. This page [0] goes some way to showing just how deeply biased Wikipedia has acted against Grayzone and others like it: [0] https://mronline.org/2020/06/15/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/ https://mronline.org/2020/06/15/wikipedia-formally-censors-t...

Synaesthesia 5y ago

Their articles are generally really well researched and they actually call for an end to all war in Syria. Thy're consistently anti-war.

tgv 5y ago
It looks as if they’re consistently anti-US: not a single word against China, but each shady remark that casts some doubt on US policy gets the floor.
- fsagx 5y ago
  They are certainly left or hard-left and are very critical of US, NATO, and Israel. If they view themselves as activist-journalists, it seems a logical choice to focus their criticism on the US, where (in theory) they have some chance of moving policy through public opinion. There is approximately zero chance of their reporting swaying Xi, Putin, or Assad. US adversaries get plenty of unfavorable reporting in more mainstream channels.
  - simonh 5y ago
    They're a political pressure group. That's not necessarily a criticism, they can publish whatever they like, but they aren't anti war, and they aren't against a lot of things they report on. They're only against them and only report on them when their political enemies, the US and the west generally do them regardless of context or provocation or any broader circumstances. Outside that, they don't give a crap what anyone does. Pretending otherwise is I'm afraid rather naive. To be fair, they say so quite clearly, check out the editor's profile page on the site itself.
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      What? Here's the editor-in-chief's page that I see: > "Mnar Adley is founder, CEO and editor in chief of MintPress News, and is also a regular speaker on responsible journalism, sexism, neoconservativism within the media and journalism start-ups. She started her career as an independent multimedia journalist covering Midwest and national politics while focusing on civil liberties and social justice issues posting her reporting and exclusive interviews on her blog MintPress, which she later turned MintPress into the global news source it is today. In 2009, Adley also became the first American woman to wear the hijab to anchor/report the news in American media." Nothing there so far as I can see about how "they're only against them and only report on them when their political enemies, the US and the west generally do them regardless of context or provocation or any broader circumstances"? ... Are you referring to some other page maybe?