4 ms·

Mainstream news is known to be shit, not sure why you're surprised, or acting surprised. There's non shady sources like understandingwar.org which have given p

Mainstream news is known to be shit, not sure why you're surprised, or acting surprised. There's non shady sources like understandingwar.org which have given pretty good tracking of the war.

rnd0 4y ago
I don't trust the whole "mainstream news" narrative. It implies that there are news sources that somehow aren't driven by some $#^holes' ideological or corporate motives. "understandingwar", for instance. Who are they, who funds them and why on earth should I trust them? I'm critical of cnn etc but personally I think they're more credible than some NGO-sponsored blog IMO
- yucky 4y ago
  >"understandingwar", for instance. Who are they, who funds them and why on earth should I trust them? Funny you should ask! Bill Kristol is on their Board[1], and for those who don't know who Bill Kristol is, he is one of the foremost Neocons in the US, behind such hits as WMD's in Iraq and 20-years of Adventure in Afghanistan. Most of the rest of the Board appears to be like-minded neocons who beat the drums of war (and more importantly, intervention) every chance they get. [1] https://www.understandingwar.org/who-we-are https://www.understandingwar.org/who-we-are
rufus_foreman 4y ago
Non shady sources, huh? Let's take a look. That web site is run by "The Institute for the Study of War", ISW. Here's what Wikipedia says: "ISW generally advocates to increase American military involvement in international conflicts. Their political stances tend to align with the business interests of the ISW's funders, whose activities include producing tanks and weapon systems." There's a list of their board members at https://www.understandingwar.org/who-we-are https://www.understandingwar.org/who-we-are. There are two former generals listed, General David H. Petraeus who was the commander of US forces in Iraq for a while, and General Jack Keane. Keane was an advisor on the US occupation of Iraq on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. Along with Frederick Kagan, Keane wrote a paper called "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq". Kagan's wife Kimberly Kagan is the president of the ISW. You've also got William Kristol listed as a member of the board, Kristol is a neoconservative who argued for the "surge" in Iraq, he is a co-founder of the "Project for the New American Century" which is a neo-conservative think tank. PNAC argued for regime change in Iraq starting in the 1990's. The other co-founder of PNAC was Robert Kagan, Frederick Kagan's brother. Another board member listed is Joe Lieberman, who was a major support of the Iraq war when he was in the Senate. There's another half dozen or so people on the board that I don't recognize, but I don't have to dig much further to know that if somebody wants to get their news from the neoconservatives who brought us the Iraq war, understandingwar.org is definitely a go-to source. Then again, I don't trust CNN either.
- admax88qqq 4y ago
  Oh I don't doubt they have a US slant, but their reporting is far more nuanced than the mass market cable/internet news channels that are driven by eyeballs/clicks.

Mainstream news is known to be shit, not sure why you're surprised, or acting surprised. There's non shady sources like understandingwar.org which have given pretty good tracking of the war.

rnd0 4y ago

I don't trust the whole "mainstream news" narrative. It implies that there are news sources that somehow aren't driven by some $#^holes' ideological or corporate motives. "understandingwar", for instance. Who are they, who funds them and why on earth should I trust them? I'm critical of cnn etc but personally I think they're more credible than some NGO-sponsored blog IMO

yucky 4y ago
>"understandingwar", for instance. Who are they, who funds them and why on earth should I trust them? Funny you should ask! Bill Kristol is on their Board[1], and for those who don't know who Bill Kristol is, he is one of the foremost Neocons in the US, behind such hits as WMD's in Iraq and 20-years of Adventure in Afghanistan. Most of the rest of the Board appears to be like-minded neocons who beat the drums of war (and more importantly, intervention) every chance they get. [1] https://www.understandingwar.org/who-we-are https://www.understandingwar.org/who-we-are

rufus_foreman 4y ago

Non shady sources, huh? Let's take a look. That web site is run by "The Institute for the Study of War", ISW. Here's what Wikipedia says: "ISW generally advocates to increase American military involvement in international conflicts. Their political stances tend to align with the business interests of the ISW's funders, whose activities include producing tanks and weapon systems." There's a list of their board members at https://www.understandingwar.org/who-we-are https://www.understandingwar.org/who-we-are. There are two former generals listed, General David H. Petraeus who was the commander of US forces in Iraq for a while, and General Jack Keane. Keane was an advisor on the US occupation of Iraq on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. Along with Frederick Kagan, Keane wrote a paper called "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq". Kagan's wife Kimberly Kagan is the president of the ISW. You've also got William Kristol listed as a member of the board, Kristol is a neoconservative who argued for the "surge" in Iraq, he is a co-founder of the "Project for the New American Century" which is a neo-conservative think tank. PNAC argued for regime change in Iraq starting in the 1990's. The other co-founder of PNAC was Robert Kagan, Frederick Kagan's brother. Another board member listed is Joe Lieberman, who was a major support of the Iraq war when he was in the Senate. There's another half dozen or so people on the board that I don't recognize, but I don't have to dig much further to know that if somebody wants to get their news from the neoconservatives who brought us the Iraq war, understandingwar.org is definitely a go-to source. Then again, I don't trust CNN either.

admax88qqq 4y ago
Oh I don't doubt they have a US slant, but their reporting is far more nuanced than the mass market cable/internet news channels that are driven by eyeballs/clicks.