General Discussion

If the info in the article is false, fine – please adduce your contrary sources.

I don't care where info comes from; if it's relevant and true, I want access to it.

Beyond that, the mere expression of opposition to US involvement in Ukraine does not make one a purveyor of Russian propaganda, nor are we always best advised to ignore every word that comes out of the mouth of an adversary.

There are legit reasons to question the prioritization we've given to the conflict in Urkaine – e.g., the facts among others that the US backed a coup in 2014 that successfully ousted Ukraine's democratically-elected president in order to replace him with a leader we selected, and that if Russia had ousted a democratically-elected President of Mexico, we might find that situation similarly intolerable; and/or that before Russian's invasion, Ukraine's government was according to several independent NGO's closer to Russian authoritariansim than to American democracy and was also known as the most corrupt country in Europe and one of the most corrupt on the planet.

The veracity and relevance of posts on Zerohedge varies greatly with the author, but it's generally more libertarian than hard-right. It also tends to provide much more detailed and sometimes more objective info about economic and financial matters than most other economic sites, let alone general news sites, because its readership includes a lot of investors who often care less about whether the info is favorable or unfavorable to any particular political constituency and more about whether it's true and could influence economic outcomes (i.e., how invested should they be and in what).

All of that said, I personally have found most of the media bias checking sites to be biased. E.g., I've seen them rate a journalist as unreliable based solely on a single speculation casually expressed by the journalist which turned out to be wrong, without considering terrabytes of formal articles by the journalist that had never even been plausibly questioned, let alone proved incorrect. If the same approach were used to evaluate the records of pretty much any other journalist you could name at MSM outlets, they'd all have to have been rated much worse.

I would like to see discussion on DU be progressive, prioritizing the welfare of the 90% over that of oligarchs, justice for all, etc. But knowledge is power, and we can't maximize our effectiveness in behalf of our causes unless we make the effort to sift the news for the truth from a range of sources.