5 ms·

Grayzone is an extremely unreliable source which frequently publishes false stories with an anti-US bent [1][2]. The past discussion [3] has a WSJ link which sh

by rafram 1y ago

Grayzone is an extremely unreliable source which frequently publishes false stories with an anti-US bent [1][2]. The past discussion [3] has a WSJ link which should be preferred over this. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone [2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzone-russia-iran-support/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzon... [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44268547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44268547

whatshisface 1y ago
It'd probably be a stronger case if you could point out an inaccuracy in the article. In a sense it's implicit agreement to only criticise the identity of the source.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- stickfigure 1y ago
  Dishonest sources can generate bullshit faster than honest people can debunk it. At some point you are obliged to dismiss consistently unreliable sources. In fact, Wikipedia has already done this: "The English Wikipedia formally deprecated the use of The Grayzone as a source for facts in its articles in March 2020, citing issues with the website's factual reliability." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone)
  - monkeywork 1y ago
    Ok so in this case what is not correct
  - jjmarr 1y ago
    It was deprecated because it was the personal blog of Max Blumenthal more than any specific false stories. The Wikipedia discussion is public: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_Grayzone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...
    - stickfigure 1y ago
      It's literally right there in the heading of that RfC you linked: Taking into account the strength of the arguments and those who did not distinguish between those options, there is a rough consensus for Option 4: "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated".
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
newsclues 1y ago
While I don’t agree with them all the time, I find this sort of critique to be unfair and often are attempting to silence alternative media and viewpoints which is a disservice to journalism
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- sitkack 1y ago
  It is an Ad hominem against the source w/o addressing the actual content of the article.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    It did address the content of the article: it suggested a more reliable source that is saying the same thing. Questioning the integrity of a source is not an ad adhominem argument. Saying that a conclusion is false because of the speaker would be an ad hominem.
    - sitkack 1y ago
      Attacking anything other than the argument itself is fallacious. The core of tenet described in Ad Hominem is that the argument is being diminished because of who is delivering it, if it is a person, a robot, a magazine or parrot doesn't change that the argument itself is being ignored.
      - epistasis 1y ago
        That is absolutely untrue. One can comment on the unreliability and inappropriateness of a source without impugning the material, and that's exactly what's been done here. I don't think you are fully reading what was written.
        sitkack 1y ago
        In a rhetorical sense, yes. But it doesn't invalidate the logic of the statement. Your viewpoint would that of an attorney, not a logician.
rowanseymour 1y ago
The WSJ article is paywalled
- rafram 1y ago
  Of course. Faux-news outlets peddling disinformation will always be happy to let you read their work for free. Serious journalists rely on your subscription for their paycheck, not Iranian state media, like the author of the OP link [1]. And paywalled links are allowed on HN [2]. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzone-russia-iran-support/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzon... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10179596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10179596
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Tiberium 1y ago
Any reason to prefer the WSJ link over the official source at https://www.army.mil/article/286317/army_launches_detachment_201_executive_innovation_corps_to_drive_tech_transformation https://www.army.mil/article/286317/army_launches_detachment... ?
- rafram 1y ago
  That seems good too.
XenophileJKO 1y ago
I stopped reading as soon as I read "unprovoked" in regards to the current middle east conflict. I think regardless of what side you are on, there has been a lot of provoking all around.
pixelcloud 1y ago
While that may be true, the article is accurate and has links to its sources.

by rafram 1y ago

whatshisface 1y ago

It'd probably be a stronger case if you could point out an inaccuracy in the article. In a sense it's implicit agreement to only criticise the identity of the source.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
stickfigure 1y ago
Dishonest sources can generate bullshit faster than honest people can debunk it. At some point you are obliged to dismiss consistently unreliable sources. In fact, Wikipedia has already done this: "The English Wikipedia formally deprecated the use of The Grayzone as a source for facts in its articles in March 2020, citing issues with the website's factual reliability." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone)
- monkeywork 1y ago
  Ok so in this case what is not correct
- jjmarr 1y ago
  It was deprecated because it was the personal blog of Max Blumenthal more than any specific false stories. The Wikipedia discussion is public: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_Grayzone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...
  - stickfigure 1y ago
    It's literally right there in the heading of that RfC you linked: Taking into account the strength of the arguments and those who did not distinguish between those options, there is a rough consensus for Option 4: "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated".
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

newsclues 1y ago

While I don’t agree with them all the time, I find this sort of critique to be unfair and often are attempting to silence alternative media and viewpoints which is a disservice to journalism

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
sitkack 1y ago
It is an Ad hominem against the source w/o addressing the actual content of the article.
- epistasis 1y ago
  It did address the content of the article: it suggested a more reliable source that is saying the same thing. Questioning the integrity of a source is not an ad adhominem argument. Saying that a conclusion is false because of the speaker would be an ad hominem.
  - sitkack 1y ago
    Attacking anything other than the argument itself is fallacious. The core of tenet described in Ad Hominem is that the argument is being diminished because of who is delivering it, if it is a person, a robot, a magazine or parrot doesn't change that the argument itself is being ignored.
    - epistasis 1y ago
      That is absolutely untrue. One can comment on the unreliability and inappropriateness of a source without impugning the material, and that's exactly what's been done here. I don't think you are fully reading what was written.
      - sitkack 1y ago
        In a rhetorical sense, yes. But it doesn't invalidate the logic of the statement. Your viewpoint would that of an attorney, not a logician.

rowanseymour 1y ago

The WSJ article is paywalled

rafram 1y ago
Of course. Faux-news outlets peddling disinformation will always be happy to let you read their work for free. Serious journalists rely on your subscription for their paycheck, not Iranian state media, like the author of the OP link [1]. And paywalled links are allowed on HN [2]. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzone-russia-iran-support/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzon... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10179596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10179596

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Tiberium 1y ago

Any reason to prefer the WSJ link over the official source at https://www.army.mil/article/286317/army_launches_detachment_201_executive_innovation_corps_to_drive_tech_transformation https://www.army.mil/article/286317/army_launches_detachment... ?

rafram 1y ago
That seems good too.

XenophileJKO 1y ago

I stopped reading as soon as I read "unprovoked" in regards to the current middle east conflict. I think regardless of what side you are on, there has been a lot of provoking all around.

pixelcloud 1y ago

While that may be true, the article is accurate and has links to its sources.