Unfortunately, some people will always conflate comfort with credibility. If they prefer certain conclusions, they'll overlook how those conclusions were reached. It's called confirmation bias, and GP seriously needs to look it up.
Besides, the site is nearly all
"that kind of analytical journalism"
I outlined.
That was some really good information, e.g., the street revenue is providing money enough to buy off likely some politicians.
There was more analytical content there, right, however no partial differential equations, than I saw anywhere else.
Sources? The common high school term paper writing standards want references to credible sources, hopefully primary. In this case, fentanyl from the Mexican drug cartels, the information is terrific and publishing sources might be dangerous.
For the article on the recession, there was good data that clearly established that, according to the usual definition of a recession, we are in one. As I recall, the data presented was detailed and proved the point. I'm not returning to read the piece again, but I was thrilled with how solid was the case made when I did read it.
Meanwhile I've seen a lot of words about recession in other media with never any actual definition given or actual data from good sources and responding to the definition. E.g., as I recall, some economists are quoted as predicting that we WILL be in a recession (suggesting that we are not yet, when the economist was quoted which was still after the article). To me, the other media just toss around recession while omitting any meaningful content.
You seriously read that "piece" and thought - here is some "analytical journalism"
Where is the analysis? Where is the journalism? [This is sarcasm.]
Why is it that I am totally unsuprised that someone who is anti "main stream media" thinks that that steaming pile of dogshit is "journalism".
They are fucking musings - its in the title.