10 ms·
Ignore what the guys above have answered. Stratfor is essentially a US-based but global news source that gives you the expert commentary and analysis on geopol
by steve8918 15y ago
Ignore what the guys above have answered.
Stratfor is essentially a US-based but global news source that gives you the expert commentary and analysis on geopolitical issues that the regular news won't tell you.
Case in point: I started subscribing to Stratfor after the Fukushima meltdown and their great commentary on the situation, stuff that you wouldn't hear about from any other news source. One really great analysis talked about how the farm lands would take over a year just to recover from the salt water from the tsunami, let alone the other damage. Stuff like that you just don't read from CNN, google news, etc. As well, despite what the Japanese government was telling the world, it turned out to be the worst nuclear disaster in history.
They have expert commentary and analysis on any types of issues that are geopolitical in nature. For example, they have a lot of information on the European financial crisis, Iran capturing the drone, and they even debunked a recent Iranian news conference saying they had captured an American spy. Their analysis on the Middle East protests, as well as the the fallout in terms of Putin's recent political issues, etc, was very interesting.
It's pretty much the most informed, independent, honest news source for anything going on throughout the world.
The comments above talking about how they fear monger, etc, is completely unfounded, at least from what I've seen. I've subscribed to them for almost a year now, and there's no fear mongering whatsoever.
The fact that Anonymous/hacker groups would target Stratfor is kind of idiotic, it's independent news sources like this that don't work at the behest of governments and Rupert Murdoch that is keeping us informed, at least somewhat.
- gasull 15y agoSome people consider Stratfor to be a source of disinformation and propaganda: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stratfor http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stratfor
- jonhendry 15y agoAt your link: "Mongoven warned industry leaders about the increasing collaboration between environmental groups and patients groups on the issue of exposure to chemicals. " That seems pretty unobjectionable. It's probably even true, and probably ought to have been obvious to the industry without Stratfor's advice. The issue is how the industry responded: by throwing up smokescreens? By lobbying government to avoid regulation? Or by working to reduce emissions and satisfy the public's concerns? An outfit like Stratfor can't control what actions its clients take based on the information and opinions it provides. So Sourcewatch's case comes down to 1) a leftist's complaint about its coverage of Latin America, and 2) something that is not objectionable. Which is pretty weak.
- gasull 15y agoI'm just pointing out that some people consider Stratfor a source of propaganda, and probably that's the reason why Anonymous attacked it. Stratfor looks interesting. I bookmarked it and I'll decide on my own if it's propaganda or not after reading it for a while.
- lambdasquirrel 15y agoIt's propaganda for a realpolitik point of view. They do not really take sides with anyone. My only gripe with them is that, all things being considered, and George Friedman's work having been read, they seem subtly promoting of their reasoning for American dominance, but that bent may just have to do with the way they do their best to explain why things are the way they are, rather than what things should be. If anything, that is the reason to dislike them. Their analysis of the facts more or less ignores humanity. But to be fair to them, the world is an inhuman place to live in.