zlacker

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

[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzon...

[3]: >>44268547

>>rafram+(OP)
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.

>>rafram+(OP)
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

>>rafram+(OP)
The WSJ article is paywalled

>>newscl+o1
It is an Ad hominem against the source w/o addressing the actual content of the article.

>>whatsh+q
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)

>>rafram+(OP)
Any reason to prefer the WSJ link over the official source at https://www.army.mil/article/286317/army_launches_detachment... ?

>>stickf+S2
Ok so in this case what is not correct

>>Tiberi+s3
That seems good too.

>>rowans+y1
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/grayzon...

[2]: >>10179596

>>sitkac+E2
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.

>>sitkac+E2
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.

>>stickf+S2
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...

>>epista+A4
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.

>>rafram+(OP)
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.

>>landl0+05
That isn't my point at all. Most good propaganda is true btw.

>>sitkac+m5
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.

>>jjmarr+45
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".

>>rafram+(OP)
While that may be true, the article is accurate and has links to its sources.

>>epista+U6
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.