Dave Van Zandt is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence-based reporting. Since High School (a long time ago), Dave has been interested in politics and noticed as a kid the same newspaper report in two different papers was very different in their tone. This curiosity led him to pursue a Communications Degree in college; however, like most 20-year olds he didn’t know what he wanted and changed to a Physiology major midstream. Dave has worked in the healthcare industry (Occupational Rehabilitation) since graduating from college but never lost the desire to learn more about bias and its impacts.

The combination of being fascinated by politics, a keen eye to spot bias before he even knew what it was called, and an education/career in science gave Dave the tools required for understanding Media Bias and its implications. This led to a 20-year journey where Dave would read anything and everything he could find on media bias and linguistics. He also employed the scientific method to develop a methodology to support his assessments.

If you're going to discredit a source, please try to do the legwork of actually discrediting it. A guy with a Bachelors in Physiology and being "fascinated with politics since high school (a long time ago)" cannot be considered a reliable source, nevermind one who claims to follow the "scientific method" which he, presumably, learned while studying to become an occupational therapist or through his 20-year journey of reading political news.

If you have photos of this man, any record of interviews with him, records that support his credibility/the incorporation of his company, records of his job in occupational rehabilitation, details about his team, or anything else, please feel free to share them. Please do not confuse him with Dave E. Van Zandt (Princeton BA Sociology, Yale JD, London School of Economics PhD, ex-managing editor of the Yale Law Journal, ex-Dean of Northeastern's School of Law, ex-President of The New School).

[–] JaymesRS 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

A site or source has to earn the credit before it can be discredited.

You can attack the one making the critique all you want and it doesn’t establish actual credibility for the original source. The grayzone’s weaknesses in misleading coverage and sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes is well noted in academic journals and other sources cited the references on their Wikipedia page.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

*NATOpedia

.
Wikipedia’s conceptualization of what counts as an authoritarian regime is itself imperial core propaganda.

[–] JaymesRS -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

That would be literally devastating if I had cited Wikipedia itself instead of using it as a way to point you to a long list of citations from far more authoritative sources without wasting my time typing them all out again.

Good effort though.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I’ve been watching the Five Eyes governments and Anglosphere corporate media try to squelch The Grayzone for years.

It would be devastating if you were to read Inventing Reality or Manufacturing Consent.

You know who else was on RT? Chris Hedges. Why was he there? Because he was right about Iraq’s supposed WMDs, so corporate media permanently shunned him. Meanwhile people who got it wrong, like Anderson Cooper, are still prominent corporate media figures, because they’ve proven to be reliable lap dogs. I mean, Cooper interned at the CIA.

Corporate media obviously aren’t going to want to correct their coverage of Victoria Nuland & co’s Maidan coup.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

Citing Wikipedia is lazy and reflects a lack of effort. Do better.

[–] AmidFuror@kbin.chat 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Actually, it still wouldn't have been devastating because it continues to ignore the credibility of The Grayzone as the subject matter of the comment thread. It's just doubling down on the original tangent.