5 ms·

I'm honestly not familiar with their coverage, but when the first article in its defense I can find from them can pretty much be summed up as "it's doing great

I'm honestly not familiar with their coverage, but when the first article in its defense I can find from them can pretty much be summed up as "it's doing great things for the military-industrial complex," I'm somewhat skeptical. http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/5b-and-700-high-tech-jobs-reasons-why-f-35-has-friends/ http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/5b-and-700-high-tech-jobs... I also couldn't help but note that there's a Raytheon sponsorship banner at the top of the page and a conspicuous amount of positive Raytheon coverage when I was looking for articles. They may be a totally credible source, but on the surface it doesn't feel like I'd get a straight story there either.

hackuser 11y ago
Hmmm ... take a closer look at that article. Its title is "$5B And 700 High Tech Jobs: Reasons Why F-35 Has Friends", and says money and jobs are buying political support for the project -- something I'd think you would agree with. EDIT: Anyway, I didn't say you'd get the straight story, I said you'd get the other side. They do provide some very informative defense policy info that I don't see mentioned elsewhere.
- commandar 11y ago
  It's more the context of the piece I take issue with. e.g., the fact that they call out critics for saying the program is behind schedule by linking to a piece they wrote quoting a civilian contractor saying he's very confident they'll deliver a specific component on time... that was written about a month before Lockheed announced more overall delays. I'll keep an eye on them, but the handful of articles I've read through so far definitely feel like they've been run through a PR filter rather than a reporting one and that's not just limited to the F-35 coverage.