Context:
The article in question was well sourced, factually accurate, and written by a well-renowned author and journalist whose work appears elsewhere too, regardless of which outlet published it.
Nonetheless, Jordan Lund is once again blindly trusting a pro-zionist conservative outlet masquerading as a bias and fact checker that nothing from anywhere that criticizes the fascist apartheid regime can be reliable 🤦
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/senatedocs/2/
Look at page 98, they literally have an org chart of Russian disinformation campaigns within this one particular network that they analyzed, and where Mint Press fits into it.
I also sent some examples of open propaganda articles elsewhere in these comments. They don’t source their stuff “very well,” by definition, since they are posting open propaganda and disguising the fact that it’s sourced indirectly from Russian intelligence, but that’s not even the point. It has nothing to do with “disdain,” although I applaud your consistent efforts to remove the discussion from a factual domain and into an emotional one through the use of charged words (or into a domain where “sourcing of articles” is the issue.)
Emotional? Lol Phillip. Not everything Russia says is a lie, not everything they say is the truth. I’m saying mintpress articles, even if sources from Russia, cite verifiable sources. Who’s emotional?
Fwiw, I also lend credence to legacy media, although I often can’t easily verify it. I’ve been wrong about a LOT of stuff and that’s part of being human. I even know sometimes I can’t believe my lying eyes. And sometimes, i can because they’re not lying. It’s not like nyt who’s openly admitted they lie when the feds ask them to, then keep lying, even when the feds_don’t_ all them. And I still give them credence sometimes too.
Totally
I have no idea what this reply is to, and I’m not going to argue further with you. I bid you peace.