[flagged]
Yes, actually. Or silent flagging, like the guidelines ask. Being important does not make something on topic.
Now that is propaganda.
They actually provided too much evidence, betraying their source and naming them. This information isn't unfounded.
It would be easy to put a name out there, then redact it and pretend it was a real source. That it is hidden makes it hard to track even if you managed to get a copy of it when they were displaying the name, and investigating if they really exists becomes hard to do because it is easy to paint the investigator as someone not being ethical, putting the sources life at risk, and perhaps even an agent of NK seeking to harm the source.
<doffs conspiracy theory hat>
However, if both sides refer to that name as a defector, and the other side denounces their actions, it adds considerable weight to the argument.
If you replace "cyber army" with "nuclear program" do you feel the same way?
This idea of distrusting institutions like the media is probably meant to make you appear smart and in-the-know. But it’s really just nihilism that leads to the breakdown of civil discourse.
The WSJ is generally regarded as an ethical and professional source of reporting, some upheaval in the last months nonewithstanding. And that’s how the system works: you can never verify all the facts of a single article. But you can judge a publisher on their track record. And, by all means, call bullshit on anything the National Inquirer writes. But if it’s a reputable source of news, and generally gels with a lot of other reporting by other sources from all along the ideological spectrum, don’t throw a temper tantrum and expect people to believe you over them.
If we don't trust authorities, in the world of the internet where anything goes, where does that leave us?
You cannot start evaluating each and every statement from first principle.
Example: if your spouse asks you to give them your car keys, you are more likely to comply than when a stranger makes the same request.
That’s because you trust them, and because they have a lot to lose by betraying that trust. It’s no different with media outlets, the EFF, your doctor, and many other institutions.
It’s insane to pretend that you’re never trusting some authority: every time you log into your email provider or bank, you’re trusting them with information and money, based on your knowledge of their past behavior, and your understanding of their respective incentive structures.
Logic is a valuable academic exercise, but also leaves you nowhere if the situation to assess becomes slightly complex.
It is just dangerous this kind of "journalism", that keep building on suspicion stories.