China sought to cover up the sinking of its newest nuclear-powered submarine, a senior US defense official said on Thursday.
The sinking at a shipyard earlier this year was first reported by The Wall Street Journal, which also said that satellite imagery later showed large floating cranes arriving to salvage it.
…
The incident is a setback for China, which is seeking to modernize its navy – the largest in the world, but which includes many smaller warships such as frigates and corvettes.
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.
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.