Why do you say that? Their analysis of the Beirut fertilizer explosion was spot on.
And their work on MH17 was very good too.
Of course that pointed a finger at the Russians who were claiming not to be operating in Ukraine at the time so maybe I actually see why some would prefer to baselessly brush away the whole site as "propaganda".
Takes one to know one.
> Paul Mason Says Bellingcat Launders Information For Western Intelligence
> "Just as Bellingcat get a steady stream of intel from Western agencies, I suspect the attacks on you and others are fed by Russian and Chinese intel," Mason is seen telling Khan, who has been the subject of a previous Grayzone exposé.
They're not the only OSINT group doing it, but they're the most obvious.
[1] https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/paul-mason-says-bell...
Bellingcat is indeed pure propaganda. A lot of their Russia claims during the recent conflict have been pure propaganda. They were also baselessly perpetuating the lie that the Ukrainian negotiators and Abramovich were poisoned ahead of their talks in Turkey, which turned out to be complete BS, but they didn't back down after it was proving BS either[1].
He also made ridiculously outrageous claims about Russian resources for the war which he at least walked back a little bit from[2]. Which have been echoed in such a way that people in the west seriously believed that Russia is a third world army that can't handle basic logistics, so that we could funnel more weapons to Ukraine in the hopes of crippling Russia for the future. Everyone that questioned this completely absurd narrative was insulted, attacked and called a Putin shill.
People would like to believe that Bellingcat is not propaganda, because they have been the primary source for certain bigger events that gave a lot of legitimacy to the 'Putin is Hitler' narrative and if it was propaganda, we would have to reevaluate those narratives.
Another one of these propaganda shills is Anders Östlund who was calling for the dismantling of Germany and France along the way. “The Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)’s mission is to ensure a strong and enduring transatlantic alliance rooted in democratic values and principles with strategic vision, foresight, and policy impact”[3]
It's not really surprising that these groups are funded by the national endowment for democracy, BAE, lockhead martin, etc.. But surprising to me is a bit that there are Microsoft and Google in some of these groups donor lists.
[0] https://www.bellingcat.com/app/uploads/2021/05/Bellingcat-An...
[1] https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1509156285190651909
[2] https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1499849754897010694
[3] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FS2k2giaAAEXRxC?format=jpg&name=...
They aren't a neutral observer who is simply interested in facts and truth. They have an agenda and are not transparent about it.
So basically, they're reposting/legitimizing war propaganda.
One way is to intentionally be ignorant of the facts and give an uniformed opinion that fits your agenda.
Take the letter from the 51 former senior intelligence officers who cast doubt on the Hunter Biden laptop.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9...
"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal aSorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -"
Reading the letter, you see that they don't say that the laptop is misinformation, or that the emails are fake. Only that, without attempting to verify the evidence available, they suspect it is fake because it is Russia's MO.
Why would people who make their career from verifying intelligence evidence not look at the actual evidence? Not attempt to verify before assessing it. So they don't have to lie about it.
The modelling and presentation (seemingly done in Blender?) was very impressive.
It seem to me that "these people" have a high opinion of the west as it stands.