1) It's not a newspaper

2) It's not a peer-reviewed journal

3) The author's have approximately 125 to 250 words...and feel they don't have words to waste on "sources", Footnotes and the like...

 

The job is to inform, entertain, spark a debate, not provide you with a peer-reviewed, foot-noted "balanced" discussion, but to draw your eyeballs and words to this page, so as to generate ad revenue....

 

If you want sources I'd recommend "In From the Cold" or "Information Dissemination"...I might add that John Pike, Global security.org doesn't source much either, from what I've read, he gives his considered OPINION.  I would put this "blurb" into the same category...

 

So, this is the first I'd heard of "media reports", IF I cared and if you do, "Google" it and see if you can find any reputable media reports on this topic.  If you can't then, were I  you I'd respond with an entry that lists your search terms, and your results and simply say, "There's nothing to this story."  OTOH, you might find the articles or some articles and discover that they are from News of the World or Pravda and claim that these are hardly reliable sources.  This is an interactive media, you are allowed to interact.  At a meta-level you could ask the SYSOPs how one becomes a "contributor" and undertake to drive out bad reporting with your GOOD reporting or alternatively present an entry on why contributors write as they do...

 

Bottom-line: this is a commercial, amateur site that seeks to get eyeballs, from other amateurs...think of it as "60 Minutes for Defense Nerds", and in a short amount of time the contributor has to present some "facts" and make his/her point, all with the goal of inflaming viewers to respond, drawing eyeballs and ad revenue, not present a balanced, well-supported case.  If you want the latter you'd best move on somewhere else.

 

Lastly, I mean no dis-respect, but think you expect too much from this site....

Providing basic sourcing information is not a waste of space and is an absolute requirement if you want to be taken seriously. 

 

These articles, at their best, are poorly rewritten reports from credible sources. Not infrequently they are just flat wrong, are reports of rumors from some message board, or completely  misunderstand the subject matter.

I really don't know why strategypage pretends these are something more than a message board post by some nameless poster.

 

 

I don't know who wrote the original article, but they would come off as informed, knowedgable about writing (on the net or otherwise), and a go to source for reliable information. As opposed to publishing stuff with no visible means of support. Perhaps the writer here has never written anyplace but here, but outside, in the rest of the world (including the internet) sourcing data gives credibility. Something completely lacking in those who don't source. I'm not an English major but I know how to write, read, and tell the difference between verde and Shinola.

Lastly, I mean no dis-respect to who ever wrote this, but they just need to learn some of these basics before they start putting it down in writing.

 

Best of luck with that.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Are you not at perfect liberty to become a better constirbutor?  By all means do so...

 

Would you care to comment on  the SUBSTANCE of the article?  The linked thread suggests thatt here wasn't much to the "media" claims.

Thank you for not debating whether or not sourcing within even a amateur article is a requirement not really an option. I'd love to comment on the substance of the article, if it had any. I am still waiting for you to show me some substance by sourcing your claims. I contribute volumes here on Strategy Page, and it is all sourced. If I forgot to source it, I will be happy to provide it when asked. I won't argue about whether or not your expectations are way too high.

"Professionalism is never optional..." Source: unknown.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

 

Perhaps it?s not germane to this topic however, I don't
think it?s too much to ask for minimal source information whether this is an amateur
site or not.  Offering an article as fact
has established guidelines and standards and a generally accepted standard
includes source information.  However, if
these articles have been established as ?opinion? or ?commentary? then sources
are unnecessary, although desired.  I
really enjoy this site and I wish I had more information regarding sources and
authors.

 At any rate, has anyone thought that due to the fact that
multiple nations will have various versions of this aircraft that perhaps it wouldn?t
benefit the U.S. to develop an aircraft that could directly challenge the F-22?
Just a thought.

I think the F35 and the F22 are meant to be complimentary in the same way the F16 and the F15 are complimentary.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Leroy!  Glad you could make it back.  The Frenchmen all seem to have left town, so there may not be much for you to do, but I hope you'll stick around.

 

Strategypage is more blog than news-site.

 

You can get great news from strategypage but you have to temper it with a skeptical mind and remember some of what is posted is just false.

 

I remember a story a month or two ago about a battle in Afghanistan where about 10 US troops died and Strategypage said over 60 insurgents died in the fight.  No where anywhere no matter how hard I looked was there any kind of report anywhere in the world that 60 insurgents died in the battle.  There is still no such source anywhere in the world.  So Strategypage was either on satelite phone with one of the solders walking around counting bodies or that just straight-up made it up.

Dude, I didn't write it...I'm commenting on it.  Or rather commenting about your complaint...It's what we do here.  Mayhap you ought to stop coming if the "articles" annoy you OR you could start contributing "articles."  I just find it funny that after all these years, I've noticed your writing-and it IS good, you just reached your limit?  This is what the site is...it's like complaining that a John McCain site isn't balanced or that an Obama site doesn't provide the whole truth about McCain.  Of course they don't...and this isn't exactly the Army/Air Force/Navy Times of course even the NYT doesn't exactly source all it's articles, either. 

 

Bottom-line: I got no dog in this fight.  The articles here haven't dramatically improved or declined, IMO.  They are what they have been for some time, just seems odd to complain about it now.  And complaining isn't likely to improve them much, only declining eye balls OR new and better writers are going to change the quality of the fare.

 

Again do you have any comment on the SUBSTANCE of the article?  Has the F-35 been "trounced"...Heck I don't know, the link thread would suggest that this is a silly complaint, simply the last gasp of the Fighter Mafia and Carlo Kopp in Australia.  Would you agree or disagree?