• Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Grayzone is not reliable reporting. It is no different from the Daily Mail or Breitbart, it simply leans in a different direction.

    Reader beware.

    • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Check OPs posting history. Pro-China content, Pro-Russia content, ignores every article critical of Russia/China. If this isn’t a troll account, then OP is the very definition of a useful idiot.

        • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Absolutely. Harvard estimates that China’s 50 Cent troll army makes 488 million comments per year. And that was their estimate from 2016. Always be skeptical of what you’re read, and if you’re suspicious, check the poster’s comment history.

          I actually got a temp ban for calling out a massive Russian troll account on Reddit because, “You have to attack the idea, not the user.”

  • 0xD@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Wow, this article is totally not inflammatory and so incredibly objective and helpful. Not.

    That’s not reporting, and it’s all but serious journalism.

    • s38b35M5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Can you share an example of the lack of journalism in this piece? I agree that the media bias of this formerly-unknown-to-me source is bad, but this piece has many, many reliable sources (USA Spending website, Reuters, NYT, BBC, etc.).

      And isn’t it generally known that profiteering and graft occurs during armed conflict? Why not expose it?

      Edit: for example, spending $US5.5M on six boats, trailers, spare parts and “training” seems high right? How much does a 38’ aluminum boat usually cost? Less than $100k, right? So, was the extra $4.9M for “delivery?” why wouldn’t this information be in the public interest?

      • MangoMakesMeSmile@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s a series of figures given without context along with various unfounded opinions mixed in. I can’t take any article seriously when it endorses the stance that Russia is being backed into a corner and faces an existential threat to its survival due to its invasion of Ukraine. It also repeatedly calls this a proxy war, which is simply not true based on, ya know, definitions of words. I also find it disingenuous to say Washington drew Moscow into this “proxy war” when Moscow voluntarily started this invasion against the backdrop of expected world condemnation. If Putin himself didn’t bankroll this piece then he should be retroactively paying the editor and author for the blatant misinformation.

        Edit: Nice edit. You think a militarily equipped 38’ full or center console boat costs less than 100k??? You’re off by a factor of 5-10x.