HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » The DU Lounge (Forum) » Is Global Research CA a r...

Sun May 26, 2013, 04:08 PM

Is Global Research CA a reliable source of news?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

A friend of mine has been posting things from this source on Facebook. The stories she posts (mainly about Monsanto) sound factual, but I wouldn't mind hearing opinions before I use them for a source. Many thanks!

15 replies, 155107 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is Global Research CA a reliable source of news? (Original post)
Marthe48 May 2013 OP
Ptah May 2013 #1
worldmonkey Dec 2014 #9
NYC_SKP May 2013 #2
dixiegrrrrl May 2013 #3
Marthe48 May 2013 #4
ConcernedCanuk May 2013 #5
Marthe48 May 2013 #6
Chan790 May 2013 #8
SidDithers May 2013 #7
Highpressure Feb 2015 #10
Marthe48 Feb 2015 #11
haroldburbank Feb 2015 #12
dansecdev May 2016 #13
Agschmid May 2016 #14
Post removed Sep 2017 #15

Response to Marthe48 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 04:12 PM

1. Apparently not.


Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, globalresearch.ca
mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories,
pseudoscience and propaganda.

Apparently, contributors to globalresearch.ca consider information sourced from
anyone who seems aligned to their ideology as reliable; during the 2011 Libyan civil
war the site was an apologist for Muammar al-Gaddafi, reproducing his propaganda
and painting him as a paragon of a modern leader.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ptah (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:54 PM

9. Now do your research on Rationalwiki...

The above text is directly lifted from rationalwiki... I too have questioned globalresearch.ca - I liked what i read on their site and wanted to find out how reliable they were. Thereīs not much said against them - except by rationalwiki... so I researched them too... They have a heavy bias themselves... it is their mission to debunk information on sites like globalresearch... they have an agenda - check for yourself... so I concluded that I couldnīt treat rationalwiki as a reliable source at all - so where does it end? - who can you trust these days, especially on the web? Seems to be impossible to find a truely non-biased source of news... just saying!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marthe48 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 04:20 PM

2. Not deemed reliable.

 

Back in the day, using them as a source on DU would get a post removed.

Like Wikipedia, the articles are only as good as the ability to find reliable supporting sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Sun May 26, 2013, 07:13 PM

3. On DU3, there are no hard and fast rules on sources.

In fact, I just read in the ATA forum Skinner's reply to a similar question, in which he said
no hard and fast rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marthe48 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 08:27 PM

4. Thank you

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marthe48 (Original post)

Sun May 26, 2013, 11:43 PM

5. Define reliable.

 

.
.
.

I checked the link, read some of the stories

There is NOTHING good about Monsanto - I'm not referring to any of the articles

I'm relating what my opinion is from reading about their behaviour for a decade or so.

Monsanto is Bechtel, or vice-versa.

Now,

If someone posted anything GOOD about Monsanto or Bechtel,

then I would be suspicious.

Just my Klazy Kanuk Opinion.

CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConcernedCanuk (Reply #5)

Fri May 31, 2013, 08:20 PM

6. Even-handed? Telling all the facts, not just

what is convenient.

My friend posted a story about bees in Illinois belonging to Terrence Ingram being seized by the State Dept. of Agriculture. I googled the story and saw a lot of links to the story, but all the information sounded the same. I read a bb and some of the comments indicated another side to the bee story. I am not a Monsanto fan, and I sure agree with you there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConcernedCanuk (Reply #5)

Fri May 31, 2013, 09:06 PM

8. Define "GOOD about...Bechtel"

 

They did very well for their shareholders by getting Uncle Sam to pay substantially above market rates for substandard behind-schedule product completion consistently for nearly a decade. If you hold stock in Bechtel, something that many of the pension funds (from back when they offered pensions to employees as opposed to 401K) of leading defense manufacturers do, you made a killing on their half-assed logistical support of killing.

That's arguably good...American retirees of companies like UTC and Boeing are reaping the benefits of Bechtel being the scum of humanity. Of course, I'm pretty sure that US service members lost their lives too on account of Bechtel's shitty work. That negates any incidental good Bechtel ever did.

Monsanto's products are destroying bee colonies. I'm allergic to bees. That's good. Of course if bees go extinct, human life will almost certainly follow within a decade as modern agriculture will fail and we'll all starve to death. That's bad. The polar bears and whales will probably survive as a result of our extinction, as will the dolphins, sharks and several over-fished species of fish. That's good. We'll all be dead so who gives a fuck? That's bad.

It seems that Monsanto and Bechtel can't do better than a wash on the ethical scale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Marthe48 (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 12:48 PM

10. Global Research

I clicked around at Global Research stories for just a few moments and and I smell non-sense. I noticed immediately the constant use of generalities like (sources say..., a report was given..., a study showed..., many people...) and so on. If this were "Public Speaking 101" at any collage, the literature would fail. Go to any known source of factual information and read how true documentation is presented. For example, a comment about people dying at a hospital from from a common cause would include the name of the hospital, doctors, case numbers, references, dates and times, preexisting conditions of the patients and so on. I did not see a consistent use of references or bibliographical context at all. I'll personally not read or take stock in any commentary of Global Research. Anything Global Research presents can be found in factual context at twenty other site with references in minutes. No reason to read anymore Global Research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Highpressure (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 11:03 AM

11. Thank you for the refresher

I remember your guidelines from my English classes way, way back. I posted this some time ago, and took the advice of other DUer's, so Global Research has been off my list of sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marthe48 (Original post)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 09:53 AM

12. michel chossudovsky's globalresearch.ca is a light in the halls of pol darkness

agree not all globalresearch.ca writers meet high scholarly or informed opinion standards, but the vast majority do. the site is a clearinghouse for many kinds of critical pol views, from the right and left. if i need quick access to left views in particular i search the site. dr paul craig roberts is routinely featured (a repub anti-fascist former reagan treas dept undersec) as is dr chossudovsky from the left, whose pol-ec views are unassailable from the left. whoever 'conspires' to trash the site as unworthy should look in the mirror first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marthe48 (Original post)

Sat May 28, 2016, 08:42 PM

13. GA is a conspiracy aggregator both anti-semitic and vehemently anti US and EU

It's run by Canadian left wing economist Michel Chossudovsky.

His writings put him as pro-Putin (his father was Russian) , Saddam, Gaddafi, Chavez, Mugabe any communists including the Kims.

Main focus anti-western, anti-jewish, pro-communist and internationalist conspiracies against the US 'hegemony', capitalism and democracy.

Russia Today and other anti western media outlets love him because they don't even have to misquote him - he despises and resents the US and Western Europe as much as they claim to.

Good example of the left-right paranoiac synthesis encouraged by Moscow (and often paid for) since Soviet times. Anti-US, NATO, Israel, Nuclear power, globalization, GM crops and racism, antisemitism and anti-migration.

All paid for by the Canadian taxpayer as he is a tenured professor.

That's genuine democracy of the varieties his idols Putin, Chavez, Gaddafi and Castro quickly stomped out.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dansecdev (Reply #13)

Sat May 28, 2016, 09:49 PM

14. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marthe48 (Original post)

Reply to this thread