Comment by rafram
3 months 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.
3 months 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.
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.
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)
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/Not...
1 reply →
Ok so in this case what is not correct
Any reason to prefer the WSJ link over the official source at https://www.army.mil/article/286317/army_launches_detachment... ?
That seems good too.
While that may be true, the article is accurate and has links to its sources.
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
It is an Ad hominem against the source w/o addressing the actual content of the article.
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.
3 replies →
Before you run cover for these guys you should probably know it’s not “muh based anti-American-imperialist” but agitprop in service of Russian and Chinese imperialism.
1 reply →
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.
The WSJ article is paywalled
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://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10179596