4 ms·
At your link: "Mongoven warned industry leaders about the increasing collaboration between environmental groups and patients groups on the issue of exposure to
by jonhendry 15y ago
At 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.