Worst Defence News Publishers & Blogs

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Insomnia strikes again, and I'm catching up with Defence News, besides keeping tabs on all the more respected news sources, like a masochist I occasional poke my nose into the more risible areas of Defence Reportage, I know I shouldn't it cringingly painfully. But like the fool I am I keep getting drawn back in to the horror show that is Defence Churnalism. So without further ado these, IMO, are my top worst defence resources available online and in print (no order to them they are all just awful)

The Sun,
Treats Defence News like Celebrity News, treats the military as something to milked for it's own financial gain, more than happy to stir things up, back stab, and rely on smear and innuendo.

The Daily Mail
Can't tell the difference between a Bell Airacobra and a Hawker Hurricane (and God knows how many other mistakes, the subbies at the Mail must have had their guide dogs stolen by Pikies) relies on outdated history and jingoistic drivel

The National Interest
Mix of military history and contemporary military news with less talent than a ten year old that's been kicked in the head by a horse. Regularly misillustrates, misidentifies ships and aircraft. Contributors understanding of military programs, technology and strategy would make Lily Savage cringe, regularly republish our next culprit.

War is Boring
Like the National Interest, but worse, because they did it first. As one wag on here put it, Friends don't let Friends quote War is Boring

Over to you gents for your examples
 

Truxx

LE
I think that you need to distinguish between the "maistream media" who are as you say bloody rubbish (with but a few exceptions) but good enough for general public consumption and more specialist publications which should know better.
 

Whining Civvy

Old-Salt
I've always found Stratfor to be b*ll*cks, although I did stop reading it a year or two ago so they may have upped their game. Despite blathering on about how highly skilled and experienced their contributers are their analysis was always, always utterly wrong and unfolding events proved it so on many occasions. I'm not qualified to comment on the accuracy of any technical reporting they do but I would not be confident in anything on that website.

Edit - the most egrerious example being, when Utoya was shot up, immediately pontificating at length on why Islamic terrorists had targeted Norway, that particular political party, and the children specifically. It turned out to be Anders Breivik.
 
Last edited:
Remember Jeneral 28* - he now does a blog - future of armed forces / hm armed forces review something along those lines

Was prefaced originally with an attack on Jim30 and Liger 30 /Gabriel Molini - (he was on her for a while iirc - not sure under which user name )


**Think Spiders dumber brother with all the social graces and historical understanding of that Marine 0311 bloke
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Remember Jeneral 28* - he now does a blog - future of armed forces / hm armed forces review something along those lines

Was prefaced originally with an attack on Jim30 and Liger 30 /Gabriel Molini - (he was on her for a while iirc - not sure under which user name )


**Think Spiders dumber brother with all the social graces and historical understanding of that Marine 0311 bloke
Haven't seen him around for a while actually, he was on twitter of late.
 

Yokel

LE
One issue confuses the media - carrier terminology.

When did conventional carriers become CATOBAR? This seems to be adapted from STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery) do differentiate it from STOVL (Short Take Off and Vertical Landing), but CATOBAR makes no sense. No "but assisted recovery' exists - what else are you going to do if you get catapult launched?

CTOL - is that conventional carrier operation of landing based aircraft operations with a long runway?

@Not a Boffin ?
 

Latest Threads

Top