List of poor quality/trash outlets on PLA matters

[Blitzo]

Perhaps this thread was made too vaguely -- however I want to emphasize that the purpose is to identify blatantly poor quality/trash tier outlets and websites whose contribution to PLA watching are a "net negative".


Being biased, making mistakes, and being hostile to the PLA and PRC doesn't really matter and is irrelevant to the above characteristics. Instead it is the net cumulative balance of productive contributions to PLA watching that matters.
Biased articles in the past can be balanced by being the first to convey imagery or information that other outlets have not done so, thus providing a net benefit to PLA watching.
OTOH, articles and outlets that generate slop that exaggerate PLA achievements without common sense sourcing and undermine the credibility of PLA watching, would be considered a net negative.

If you are suggesting an outlet or a website that is "net negative" to be added to the list, it means that you think that the outlet described is absolutely trash that is basically irredeemable and where its removal from the universe would result in a net positive gain to the PLA watching discourse.
If it does not meet the above criteria, then don't bring it up to begin with.

 

[Sixth Sense]

Having poor analytical ability and being highly biased doesn't mean that an outlet is of "poor quality/trash" in nature. Ultimately HI Sutton and some websites that he has written for has also produced some information related to the PLA of use which other outlets have not, therefore I think few would argue that his content is "poor quality/trash".

My comments were not made in regard to the title of your thread - I did not say that he is a trash outlet that isn't worth posting on this forum. If you refer to Jason's chart, you'll understand that I am addressing the "tiers" in that chart.

As you highlight with your views of Naval News as a source, I think the signal to noise ratio of Sutton's technical content is reasonable enough to warrant its place in discussions on this forum (indeed I thought that would have been obvious from my mention of continued engagement with his content). My comments were merely made to warn of his historical inaccuracies and biases that are not immediately disqualifying but should be considered when treating him as a more authoritative source on PLA matters.

 

[Blitzo]

My comments were not made in regard to the title of your thread - I did not say that he is a trash outlet that isn't worth posting on this forum. If you refer to Jason's chart, you'll understand that I am addressing the "tiers" in that chart.

I understand you were replying to Jason's chart --as you see my post (#27) on the last page where I quoted his chart, I disapproved of the chart being there at all, but I've chosen to use a soft touch for now to indicate people should not discuss that tangent, rather than outright deleting it.

As you highlight with your views of Naval News as a source, I think the signal to noise ratio of Sutton's technical content is reasonable enough to warrant its place in discussions on this forum (indeed I thought that would have been obvious from my mention of continued engagement with his content). My comments were merely made to warn of his historical inaccuracies and biases that are not immediately disqualifying but should be considered when treating him as a more authoritative source on PLA matters.

If Sutton does not meet the threshold of being "poor quality/trash" and a "net negative" then it is out of bounds for discussion here.

Everyone already knows that there are many outlets and individuals who have output of varying quality in the forum -- those individuals and outlets are not the target of this thread, therefore are out of the scope of the thread.
We don't need to go around critiquing the relative pros and cons of every single individual or channel or account or outlet, otherwise the discussion becomes endless and will amount to just back and forth bashing.

Instead, we only want here the names that are felt to be categorically and unambiguously trash and a net negative for the discourse.

 

[H6BomberGal]

Curious: how do forum members feel about the official media such as Peoples' Daily, China Daily, Global Times? Sometimes these outlets cover military aviation. I ask because my newsfeed sometimes serves me Chinese aviation stories from these outlets.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Curious: how do forum members feel about the official media such as Peoples' Daily, China Daily, Global Times? Sometimes these outlets cover military aviation. I ask because my newsfeed sometimes serves me Chinese aviation stories from these outlets.

Civilian sources are either vague or plain nonsense.

 

[Phead128]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Summary:
China made a mistake by focusing on stealth tech, actually what matters is tactics. China focused too much in the tech

Nomination: DefenseNews.com (and CASI?)

Reason:

For reference, that article is based directly on this report from CASI:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 177128

Some rather "interesting" takes from the report, as highlighted by Ayi, including but not limited to:
- "OSINT sources prove that J-16D has not been inducted on a large scale"
- "China's SEAD is still based on ancient Soviet-style SEAD"
- "China has no unmanned aerial vehicles"

Even more "interesting" is that the author actually took the movie plot from the "Sky Hunter" (空天猎) movie from 2017 as if those are PLAAF's SEAD combat models.

Yes, the fvcking CASI, under the Department of the Air Force and could be regarded as one of the most authoritative sources on PLAAF developments out there.

Holy sh1t, and we thought that the recent annual CMPRs by the Pentagon were already bad enough.

I am not familiar with CASI but it sounds like even worse than CMPR as @ACuriousPLAFan mentions.

 

[Blitzo]

Nomination: DefenseNews.com and CASI?

Reason:

I don't think one can say their output is consistently a net negative to PLA watching, so no.

A poor quality outlet on PLA watching isn't one that puts out questionable/poor quality takes -- but rather one which consistently puts out poor quality takes which results in consistent negative detrimental effects to the discourse. Defensenews ultimately is still part of the establishment defense media which has some contacts and use to garner opinions of what US blob thought is like, and CASI is useful as a lens into thinktank-ing POVs as well as occasionally having academic output that is correct.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Nomination: DefenseNews.com (and CASI?)

Reason:


I am not familiar with CASI but it sounds like even worse than CMPR as @ACuriousPLAFan mentions.

It used to be decent but recently took a nose dive when they started using Chinese movies as proof that PLAAF has antiquated SEAD capabilities.

 

[Wrought]

It used to be decent but recently took a nose dive when they started using Chinese movies as proof that PLAAF has antiquated SEAD capabilities.

The quality of CASI papers depends heavily on the author in question.

 

[jnd85]

I don't think one can say their output is consistently a net negative to PLA watching, so no.

A poor quality outlet on PLA watching isn't one that puts out questionable/poor quality takes -- but rather one which consistently puts out poor quality takes which results in consistent negative detrimental effects to the discourse. Defensenews ultimately is still part of the establishment defense media which has some contacts and use to garner opinions of what US blob thought is like, and CASI is useful as a lens into thinktank-ing POVs as well as occasionally having academic output that is correct.

I was thinking, while forums are a good place to brainstorm this kind of list, what would really help is some kind of database or wiki of shame.