Talk:The Grayzone

critical vs. negative

In the first sentence of the second paragraph, which begins with "It is known for its critical coverage of American foreign policy", I changed "critical" to "negative" in Special:Diff/1212676885. The term critical is ambiguous because it can refer to both positive and negative commentary (i.e. critical reception), while the term negative unambiguously refers to negative commentary. As the article body makes clear, The Grayzone is "centred around an opposition to the foreign policy of the United States and a desire for a multipolar world"; this indicates negative coverage of American foreign policy.

In Special:Diff/1213195132, Philomathes2357 (talk · contribs · count) changed negative back to critical, with an edit summary claiming that "Critical is a more neutral, less emotional description than 'negative'". That reasoning is incorrect, because critical is not a more "neutral" term than negative, and negative is not an "emotional" term. Using critical misleads readers with its ambiguity; it should be replaced with the more precise term negative to better reflect The Grayzone's content. — Newslinger talk 21:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm also open to replacing critical coverage with criticism, which would eliminate the ambiguity while retaining a variant of the word critical. — Newslinger talk 21:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Support critical coverage Softlem (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I would avoid "negative". We use the verb "to criticise" frequently in the rest of the article so should not depart from that standard. I also think we should replace the unnecessary phrase "It is known for ..." - known by whom? Remove the ambiguity by saying "It has criticised American foreign policy". It is simpler. Burrobert (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I support this, but it requires some reworking of the whole sentence. It could be: "The Grayzone has criticized American foreign policy, sympathetically covered authoritarian regimes, and published misleading reporting." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I support "The Grayzone has criticized American foreign policy, sympathetically covered authoritarian regimes, and published misleading reporting", which addresses the ambiguity. It also eliminates the repetition of the word coverage and flows better grammatically. — Newslinger talk 00:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't support that. The sentence is a mess as-is, and would be even more of a mess if we made that change.

Every media outlet in existence has "published misleading reporting". That would not be worth mentioning in an encyclopedic context, any more than it would be worth saying "The New York Times has published misleading reporting" in the lede of its article.

As far as I can tell, the only encyclopedic justification for describing The Grayzone in such disparaging terms in Wikivoice is this: they haven't merely published misleading reporting, they are "known for" publishing misleading reporting. Known by whom?

The cited source is an anthology of political opinions called "How To Abolish the Hong Kong Police". The text reads "The Grayzone, a publication known for misleading reporting in the service of authoritarian states..."

That still doesn't answer the question of "known by whom?" the two anti-police activists in Hong Kong who wrote the story? Are these two individuals, in the context of an opinion piece, authoritative enough to be quoted verbatim in Wikivoice? I have a feeling that would not fly on other articles.

Either we keep the clumsy "known for" language, and we come to a consensus that "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police" should be quoted in Wikivoice, or we remove the "known for" piece, in which case there is no longer a justification for using Wikivoice for claims like "sympathetic to authoritarian regimes" and "misleading reporting".

My solution: these quotes should be in the body, in the "reception" section, and attributed to their authors, not used in the lede in Wikivoice. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You may have missed my reply when you pushed for the same changes in October 2023 at Talk:The Grayzone/Archive 2 § New potential sources. For your convenience, here it is again:

The book chapter's description of The Grayzone as "a publication known for misleading reporting in the service of authoritarian states" was written in the authors' voice as a factual claim, and the authors cited an example of an article from The Grayzone that was representative of its misleading pro-authoritarian content. That description is not "the opinions of Hong Kong protesters and activists"; in fact, the book chapter does not cover Hong Kong protesters' views about The Grayzone as a publication at all. There is also no evidence that the authors of Reorienting Hong Kong’s Resistance: Leftism, Decoloniality, and Internationalism are biased in relation to The Grayzone or to Hong Kong protestors. The verifiability policy allows articles to reflect what reliable sources say, which is why this article reflects the book chapter's description of The Grayzone.

There are two academic sources cited immediately after the misleading reporting descriptor, and in addition to that, many reliable sources in the History section provide ample evidence that The Grayzone has published false information and conspiracy theories, which are both subsets of misleading reporting. The article's lead section accurately summarizes the article body. — Newslinger talk 05:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

“Critical” is better than “negative” but re-working the sentence to use “criticism” would be even better.

“Known for” is clunky, and “authoritarian states” should be replaced by the specific states referred to JArthur1984 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"Known for" is indeed clunky, and the sources cited are not nearly sufficient for putting such a strong statement in Wikivoice. I also agree that "authoritarian states" should be replaced by the specific states. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've partially reverted Philomathes2357's recent changes in Special:Diff/1221740502, per WP:BRD.

Specifically, I reverted the change from "misleading reporting" to "allegations of misleading reporting", since the cited reliable sources focus on The Grayzone's own misleading reporting instead of its allegations of other sources' misleading reporting.

Also, I oppose the removal of the phrase "authoritarian regimes" from the phrase "sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes", because it describes a key pattern in The Grayzone's reporting that would otherwise be overlooked. Per Dimaggio (2023), "With the Grayzone and MintPress News, their rhetorical efforts to target the mainstream media for fake news are undermined by both venues’ uncritical reliance on official propaganda from authoritarian states that deny charges of their own human rights atrocities." I've re-added that phrase alongside the listing of individual countries, i.e. "sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, including those of Syria, Russia, and China". — Newslinger talk 18:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Being lackeys for authoritarian regimes is their shtick. Of course it should remain in the article. Weird anyone would remove it. 207.212.33.88 (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you make a good point, Newslinger. "Allegations of misleading reporting" could be interpreted as referencing The Grayzone's coverage of other outlets' misleading reporting, rather than other outlets claims about The Grayzone's misleading reporting. Good catch.

I still wonder about the phrase "authoritarian regimes". It implies that the writers at The Grayzone are somehow reflexively supportive of authoritarianism, which is, of course, silly. However, as long as we preserve the wording "most contemporary media analysis has focused on", rather than the previous "known for", I don't have a major objection to the status quo.

I see that my wording, "commentary", was changed to "analysis". I understand why that was done, but since many sources only make a passing mention of The Grayzone, and don't engage in anything approaching an "analysis" of their reporting, I think a more appropriate word would be "coverage". I think this is a happy medium that should be acceptable to everyone. I would be curious what JArthur1984 thinks of this, since he was involved in this discussion a short while ago. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless you're being sarcastic, you seem to be confused when you write:

"I think you make a good point, Newslinger. "Allegations of misleading reporting" could be interpreted as referencing The Grayzone's coverage of other outlets' misleading reporting, rather than other outlets claims about The Grayzone's misleading reporting. Good catch."

That is not User:Newslinger's point. In fact, the current content is correct. It is The Grayzone's own misleading reporting that is the object of criticism by mainstream sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think all of us are in agreement that the current wording correctly reflects that The Grayzone's own misleading reporting is what has been criticized.

I changed "contemporary media commentary" (i.e. commentary in contemporary media) to "contemporary media analysis" (i.e. analysis of contemporary media) because the cited sources include academic sources (not just media outlets) that have analyzed The Grayzone's content. The recent change back to "contemporary media coverage" again portrays the coverage as coming from other media outlets (i.e. coverage in contemporary media) rather than a mixture of media outlets and academic sources. Due to this, I support a change back to "contemporary media analysis" or similar phrasing that describes contemporary media as the target, and not solely the source, of the analysis. — Newslinger talk 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean I was neither sarcastic nor confused. I was simply acknowledging (and agreeing with) @Newslinger's observation that "the cited reliable sources focus on The Grayzone's own misleading reporting instead of its allegations of other sources' misleading reporting."

I assume that by "academic sources", you are referring to the book "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police", the article from The Journal of International Criminal Justice, and the book "Fake News in America: Contested Meanings in the Post-Truth Era".

First, it would be good to come to a consensus that these are, indeed, reliable academic sources. Surely, we can all agree without further discussion that an article published in a scholarly journal like The Journal of International Criminal Justice is a reliable, academic source. My understanding (informed by Newslinger's previous comments about "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police) is that if a book is published by an academic publisher like Palgrave Macmillan, it is, by definition, a reliable scholarly source.

Valjean, based on our conversation here, seems to have a different interpretation of what constitutes a reliable scholarly source. I, frankly, agree with Newslinger, and I find Valjean's arguments at the "Russian interference" article to be unsupported by current Wikipedia policy. I think WP:RS is very clear: " Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.". Note that WP:RS does not make a distinction between academic sources from the physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities - academic sources are academic sources, period, and they are inherently reliable and of the highest quality. If you think we're still at an impasse on that topic, Valjean, this would be a good place to sort out that confusion.

If we all agree that the three aforementioned sources are reliable, and academic, that brings us to the question of wording: "analysis", vs "commentary", vs "coverage". The reason I found the word "coverage" to be preferable to "analysis" is that the book "How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police" makes only a passing mention of The Grayzone. It does not engage in anything resembling "analysis", it merely makes a rather flippant remark about what The Grayzone is "known for". That is why I found the word "coverage" to be more precise and all-encompassing, because only two of the three academic sources engage in analysis of the topic, whereas "coverage" characterizes all three of the sources.

Perhaps the problem is referring to all of the sources as "media". Maybe a better formulation would be something like this:

"Most contemporary news coverage and academic references to The Grayzone have focused on..."

Thoughts? Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

An academic source in the "soft sciences" is a RS for the author's opinion, not necessarily for facts (as is the case with "hard sciences"). In the social sciences and political science, we're dealing with "soft science" and not clear evidence, lab research, and double-blind studies. My background is in the medical field, with two health care degrees, IOW "hard sciences".

In political science academic literature, we're dealing with authors who get their information largely the same way we do, from the news and such sources. They are subject to the same foibles we are, IOW, GIGO. Fringe authors who publish their opinions and books at academic presses will choose to ignore contrary evidence from mainstream sources while including their misguided views gleaned from fringe sources we consider unreliable. That's just the way it is. Compare books from academic sources by mainstream authors and fringe authors and the differences are plain as day. Fringe authors include conspiracy theories and debunked ideas and ignore facts they don't like. Therefore, what they write is a RS for their own opinions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I cannot tell if you are referring to Wikipedia policy, or proposing your opinion for what WP:RS "should" say.

If it's the former, could you provide a link to the relevant policy, please? Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about policy and common sense. Policy informs us to not treat opinions as facts or facts as opinions, something you often cite. Common sense informs us that much of the soft sciences, including political science, is about opinions, often opinions about facts. Mainstream and fringe soft science authors, when they write in academic literature and have their books published by academic presses, will express their opinions about various facts, often drawing from different sources of information, mainstream versus fringe. Mainstream authors will tend to rely on a broad base of reliable sources, whereas fringe academic authors will tend to use a narrow selection of sources (read what Pew Research says about that), tend to ignore many mainstream sources and facts they don't like and use unreliable sources, debunked ideas, and conspiracy theories in their writings. That's the nature of the very existence of the concepts of "mainstream" and "fringe", two categories I'm sure you know exist, even if you might quibble about which author belongs to which category. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand the "common sense" part. I've made the same point, right here on this page, so I'm somewhat sympathetic to your appeal to "common sense", but the idea that scholarly literature in the social sciences & humanities should be assessed differently than literature in the physical sciences has been consistently rejected by everyone I've talked to.

@Newslinger stated that scholarly literature should only be regarded as opinion when it is explicitly presented as such, not when the author's voice is used to state something in a factual, declarative way. I don't think that's the best way to delineate between facts and opinions, but, since that appears to be the current status quo, we should not apply it selectively.

Where, exactly, in current policy can your proposed distinction between physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities be found? If there is no such distinction in policy, there should be. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As you point out, you "made the same point ("The problem here may be that the same approach is being applied to overall political attitudes as to scientific claims.") We don't need a policy for using common sense, and most of our policies assume we apply them using common sense.

We should just use attribution for the opinions of those authors, especially when their opinions differ from mainstream sources. For example, their opinions are not necessarily "better" than what has been written in articles by experienced journalists who specialize in these topics and may know more than the author of a book published by an academic press. We know that fringe authors are sometimes professors and thus have access to academic presses, simply because they are professors, not because they are correct. It gives them an elevated platform from which to broadcast their nonsense, and, in that sense, we should not give that type of RS more deference just because it's that type of source. Some of your authors are known fringe sources of bad information, so that's part of why I'm pushing back. They are untruthful and inaccurate.

You have written elsewhere that "Wikipedia policy both tell us that scholarly sources are preferable to "pop news" sources, and the article is currently based exclusively on pop news. Most political scholars that I know regard outlets like Buzzfeed and the Rachel Maddow Show to be entertainment for the masses, not serious sources of information." You seem to be denigrating all news sources by pointing to a couple sources some might consider weak, but how often do you see us citing Rachel (who happens to be amazingly accurate most of the time because of her deep research and team approach) or BuzzFeed news which was a mix of all kinds of stuff? They are a drop in the ocean here. Why are you ignoring the many excellent and renowned journalists who publish in what you disdainfully describe as "pop news", which actually are "serious sources of information"?

You keep pushing a view that implies we, without any thought or reflection, should automatically give academic sources more deference, just because RS policy mentions that academic sources are valued when they exist. Of course we value them, but they aren't always more accurate than good news sources. They also suffer the fate and disadvantage of all books, as compared to journalism. They are static, out-of-date before the ink is dry, and can't be updated the next day with a new article based on newer facts, which is the advantage of news articles by journalists who keep up to date. Books are great for meta topics, but terrible for documentation of fast moving events.

We should also recognize that "reliable" in RS doesn't necessarily mean "accurate" or "truthful". It means fact-checked, from an established and stable source, not a fly-by-night blog, discussion forum, or chat group. Books published by academic presses are obviously RS in that sense, but in the soft-sciences, they aren't necessarily fact-checked or peer-reviewed. The author is automatically considered the authority and is just published. Period. The book is edited and proof-read, but that is also done with news stories. A different scholar with the opposite POV will then publish their book, also from an academic press, and the number of books on that shelf of mine just got longer! And then I have to, once again, double-check those books with the news articles and recognize that the news articles are up-to-date and more accurate sources. The books were only accurate for a month or so. The next congressional investigation shows the book's author got it wrong, because the book was written based on the same news sources we always use, but the process, for that book, stopped the moment it was published. It was right when written, but became wrong as soon as newer information came along. Academic authors describing controversial political events use news from journalists as sources, so you can't claim they are automatically better than journalists. (This obviously would vary according to the topic. News isn't the source for all topics.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a recurring issue, and there does not appear to be consensus on fact/opinion distinctions, physical/social science distinctions, or scholarly/pop source distinctions. This lack of consensus and clarity is a breeding ground for civil POV pushing and other problems.

This all merits deeper discussion, but this talk page is probably not the best place for it. When time allows, later this week, I'll open a discussion at a more appropriate place, and I'll ping you.

Here, at this talk page, it might be more relevant to talk about the academic sources cited in this specific article. The one that has generated the most controversy is How to Abolish the Hong Kong Police. What is your assessment of this source?

I previously suggested that it should, per common sense, be regarded as a "collection of political opinions", but Newslinger and others felt that, since it was published by academic publisher Palgrave MacMillan, and it is not explicitly labeled as an opinion piece, it should be regarded as a source of factual scholarly information. What do you think? Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding @Valjean I was neither sarcastic nor confused. I was simply acknowledging (and agreeing with) @Newslinger's observation that "the cited reliable sources focus on The Grayzone's own misleading reporting instead of its allegations of other sources' misleading reporting."

What you wrote directly contradicted Newslinger, hence my concern that there was some confusion or sarcasm at play with your "could be interpreted", which was the opposite of what Newslinger wrote. Newslinger replied to you and clarified his meaning. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Newslinger's point about the problem with the current/new wording "contemporary media coverage" is not about whether the academic sources cited here are RS or not (where the discussion has gone) but about the fact that language is a misleading way of representing sources that are academic and therefore not "media coverage". Further, "contemporary" is unnecessary; it's a newish outlet so it's not like there's going to be historical coverage to contrast to the contemporary coverage. I'm simplifying it to "coverage". BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Payments from Iranian and Russian Sources

New reporting shows that the Washington editor was being paid by Russia and Iran for coverage in the past; https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzone-russia-iran-support/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6502:A97:2AF0:2472:F565:FC7B:AF70 (talk • contribs)

Not surprised. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

For the record: WaPo had to issue a correction. The gist of it is that one of the Grayzone's editors received payment from an Iranian media network for work rendered before he ever worked at the Grazyone. No one else at the Grayzone has been proven to have received funds from Iran or Russia, and the editor in question hasn't received any further payments since he joined the Grayzone. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I just quickly looked at the article—so I can definitely be wrong about this—but it states: The files appear to show that the Iranian broadcaster paid Reed for occasional contributions to its programming in 2020 and 2021 while he was working as a correspondent for Russia’s Sputnik news outlet. Reed had nine bylines in Grayzone in 2019 and 2020, followed by a gap of 2½ years. He has had 24 more Grayzone bylines since mid-2023, when he was identified as managing editor.. Are saying Reed was receiving payments prior to becoming managing editor but while he was an active Grayzone contributor? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Claim in second paragraph of lede

As of this writing, the second paragraph of the lede reads:

"Coverage of The Grayzone has focused on its criticism of American foreign policy, its misleading reporting, and its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes, including those of Syria, Russia, and China." Right now I want to focus on the "misleading reporting" claim. The two sources for it (here and here) are both behind paywalls. There are quotes from both of these sources, which read as follows:

Number 1: "These grassroots communities are particularly evident on Twitter, where they coalesce around individual personalities like right-wing activist Andy Ngo, and around platforms with uncritical pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad editorial lines, like The Grayzone and MintPress News. These personalities and associated outlets act as both producers of counterfactual theories, as well as hubs around which individuals with similar beliefs rally. The damage that these ecosystems and the theories that they spawn can inflict on digital evidence is not based on the quality of the dis/misinformation that they produce but rather on the quantity."

Number 2: "The Grayzone, a publication known for misleading reporting in the service of authoritarian states..."

Do we actually have any examples of such misleading reporting? Do the two sources elaborate at all on this? Are there any freely available articles that can attest to this and give specific examples? Professor Penguino (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The examples are described throughout this article in the "History" and "Reception" sections. — Newslinger talk 23:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Where, exactly? I've read through the whole article. The closest thing I saw to something that could be called "misleading reporting" was some of their claims about the Russia-Ukraine war. EDIT: To clarify, I can't find anything on a lot of their reports, which seem pretty well done and verifiable. Specifically, their Marioupal theatre bombing article was criticized, but whether their human shields story was really "debunked" is questionable. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been bothered by this for years, @Professor Penguino. The three things that are usually brought up are:

1) misleading reporting about the Syrian chemical attacks. Aaron Mate has spent more time than any other journalist in the world on the topic, and he dissents from the mainstream narrative (that Assad ordered his military to gas his own people). Sources will describe Mate's reporting as "misleading", but they do not bother to explain why it is misleading, or to address any of the concerns Mate has raised.

2) misleading reporting about the war in Ukraine. One example from the article is the "debunked" claim that Ukraine used human shields. It was "debunked" by a Ukrainian open-source intelligence company with ties to the government of Ukraine. Not a source that should be taken at face value - I'm sure Hamas has "debunked" the claims that they use human shields, too, but only pro-Hamas or anti-Israel POV-pusher would put that in Wikivoice.

3) misleading reporting about the Uyghurs in China. They have "downplayed the genocide" or some variant of that. Again, this is generally asserted without evidence. Even if we accept the hypothetical that the Grayzone has "downplayed" the "genocide" against the Uyghurs...many mainstream outlets have arguably "downplayed" the "genocide" of the Palestinians, but we don't use Wikivoice to call those outlets "misleading".

Overall, I have not seen evidence that the Grayzone has a higher rate of "misleading" or factually incorrect statements than any mainstream newspaper. Sure, they're not perfect, but every RS makes mistakes, too (like when the NYT repeated CIA propaganda that said Iraq had WMDs, oops).

But, because they rock the boat by making sustained, systemic critiques of US foreign policy, other, more pro-establishment outlets frequently attempt to manufacture consent by simply asserting that the Grayzone is "misleading", without bothering with the details. Pro-establishment outlets have a vested interest in making sure the Grayzone is regarded as "fringe" and "misleading", so they regularly recruit know-nothings to write sloppy hit pieces about the outlet, like the recent Washington Post piece that had to be corrected. Such hit pieces should be understood in the context of Manufacturing Consent and the business model of corporate media, IMO, they should not be taken at face value and regurgitated without context, any more than we should take an RT article about the war in Ukraine at face value.

Some editors feel very strongly about making sure this article bludgeons the reader over the head with negative insinuations, so I don't think you'll have much success in your current line of inquiry, @Professor Penguino, but I commend you for looking into it. An entire essay about systemic bias on Wikipedia could be written, just about this one article. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Very, very well put. Thank you. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)