I had a look too, because I'm always looking for new sources of information and I was willing to entertain the possibility of this being one. It's not. Just throwing in some numbers doesn't make something analytical. Being analytical means analyzing. It means collecting the right data to support or refute a thesis, and applying a defensible methodology to their analysis. Without that, it's just numerology at best. Throwing random unsourced factoids around is just bait for the credulous; it's exactly what anyone bashing "MSM" should know enough to recognize and avoid.
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.
There were some good analytical pieces on (A) the fact that we are and have been in a recession and (B) fentanyl and some of its money flows. And there were many more.
It's been some weeks since I read the article, but one of the pieces of content was how cheap 1 Kg of fentanyl was in Mexico and how much, from memory, something over $10 million, 1 Kg sold for on US streets.
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.
I just joined it. Apparently they don't create or really publish any content but just give summaries of and links to content. Maybe one advantage is that apparently they curate the content they provide links to. That could be good, and maybe it will encourage more analytical, better, content.
Yes, they curate, but also summarize the the major pieces in their daily email. The summaries are not inflammatory or emotional. Think Walter Cronkite.
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.