US Official is an odd name for a Chinese submarine.
Isn't sinking what submarines are built for?
They are supposed to float, just not always on the surface.
Yes, but they're supposed to do it over and over. The problem with the Chinese sub is it could only sink once.
You've lost ANOTHER submarine?
Well, it sounds like they knew where it was the whole time at least.
Wars have begun that way Mr. Ambassador.
"In addition to the obvious questions about training standards and equipment quality, the incident raises deeper questions about the PLA's internal accountability and oversight of China's defense industry -- which has long been plagued by corruption," the official said.
It's pretty funny that even the Chinese military can't trust stuff "Made in China".
I feel bad for the person in charge of the front department. Everyone on the internet will blame them.
Hopefully everyone made it out safely, but I doubt that there are any reliable sources for that.
This would be one of the submarines China is hiding in the sea?
the senior US defense official said on condition of anonymity
first reported by The Wall Street Journal
Which is owned by Rupert Murdoch
Barron's is also owned by Rupert Murdoch
There's satellite imagery of the submarine being in the pier and then never returning.
This is Barron's, but it's simply hosting an Agence France-Presse article.
Are you suggesting the WSJ manufactured a quote by a senior US defense official?
It feels to me like you're trying to muddy the waters to run defense for China, something you've routinely done on this platform. Go ahead and link to that ridiculous media chart from the COVID disinformation website again by the way if you want to look even less credible.
Are you suggesting the WSJ manufactured a quote by a senior US defense official?
That is probably not what they meant. Usually when a major paper reports a story hinging on a "tip from an anonymous US official" and the story is bunk, it's not because the paper invented the source but because the source was lying according to instructions from the State Dept.
That's just my understanding though, I'm not trying to say this with any authority. I furthermore have no opinion on this story and will wait for more substantial reporting on it.
That's what gets me about this: instead of trying to claim the official was lying which is at least not out of the question, they just emphasize that the WSJ and Barron's are Murdoch publications which seems to suggest they think the WSJ itself lied about this somehow or at least want to make that appear plausible.
Well, you can look at it as the rags in question being more inclined to receive such claims with uncritical credulity if they say something like "CCP bad," etc. They don't need to lie, and in fact strategically shouldn't (though some of them countenance an alarming amount of direct lying, here I am thinking of the NYT), they can just accept what they are told by the US government, which obviously dings itself by lying but a) with the source being anonymous, how will you pin it on them without the receiving journalist destroying their career by revealing an anonymous source? and b) they're the US government, it's already kind of understood that they have a record of lying, but their position of power nonetheless acts as a sort of font of credibility, especially to US citizens.
Barron's - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Barron's:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.barrons.com/news/china-covered-up-sinking-of-newest-submarine-us-official-aa50ae23
MBFC bot, this is the Agence France-Presse. Barron's frequently sources their international news from the AFP, but I know your very existence erases nuance, so I understand how you as a bot wouldn't understand that.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/