remove minor reference and incorrect source mention |
Undid revision 573206206 by Podiaebba (talk)how is the infowars mention incorrect |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
In August 2013 Mint Press News was characterized as a 'Shia advocacy site' on [[PJ Media]].<ref>Bridget Johnson, [[PJ Media]], 31 August 2013, [http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/08/31/shia-advocacy-journalism-behind-story-claiming-saudis-gave-rebels-chemical-weapons Shia ‘Advocacy Journalism’ Behind Story Claiming Saudis Gave Rebels Chemical Weapons]</ref> |
In August 2013 Mint Press News was characterized as a 'Shia advocacy site' on [[PJ Media]].<ref>Bridget Johnson, [[PJ Media]], 31 August 2013, [http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/08/31/shia-advocacy-journalism-behind-story-claiming-saudis-gave-rebels-chemical-weapons Shia ‘Advocacy Journalism’ Behind Story Claiming Saudis Gave Rebels Chemical Weapons]</ref> |
||
In September 2013 MPN reported, based on what it said were interviews with rebels in Damascus, that the [[Al-Nusra Front]] was responsible for the [[2013 Ghouta chemical attacks|chemical weapons incidents in Ghouta]]; it reported that weapons had been delivered to untrained fighters and 'some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions'. The report was "widely circulated"<ref>Bryant Jordan, 10 September 2013, [[military.com]], [http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/10/white-house-mum-on-rebel-chem-weapons-use.html White House Mum on Rebel Chem Weapons Use]</ref> and was cited among others by Russian and Iranian state press, as well as the Spanish ''[[ABC (newspaper)|ABC]]'' newspaper.<ref>[[Jim Naureckas]], 1 September 2013, [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]], [http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/ Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?]</ref><ref>[[Voice of Russia]], 30 August 2013, [http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_30/Syrian-rebels-take-responsibility-for-the-chemical-attack-admitting-the-weapons-were-provided-by-Saudis-1203/ 'Syrian rebels take responsibility for the chemical attack admitting the weapons were provided by Saudis' - source ]</ref><ref>Lisa Pease, [[ConsortiumNews.com]], 4 September 2013, [http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/04/the-still-sketchy-intel-on-syria/ The Still-Sketchy Intel on Syria]</ref><ref>[[Press TV]], 1 September 2013, [http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/30/321260/syria-militants-use-saudisupplied-gas/ Saudi Prince Bandar behind chemical attack in Syria: Report]</ref><ref>''[[ABC (newspaper)|ABC]]'', 2 September 2013, [http://www.abc.es/internacional/20130831/abci-siria-quimicas-rebeldes-201308311738.html Una colaboradora de AP afirma que el ataque en Damasco fue obra de los rebeldes]</ref> |
In September 2013 MPN reported, based on what it said were interviews with rebels in Damascus, that the [[Al-Nusra Front]] was responsible for the [[2013 Ghouta chemical attacks|chemical weapons incidents in Ghouta]]; it reported that weapons had been delivered to untrained fighters and 'some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions'. The report was "widely circulated"<ref>Bryant Jordan, 10 September 2013, [[military.com]], [http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/10/white-house-mum-on-rebel-chem-weapons-use.html White House Mum on Rebel Chem Weapons Use]</ref> and was cited among others by Russian and Iranian state press, as well as the Spanish ''[[ABC (newspaper)|ABC]]'' newspaper; also by consortium.com and infowars.com.<ref>[[Jim Naureckas]], 1 September 2013, [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]], [http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/ Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?]</ref><ref>[[Voice of Russia]], 30 August 2013, [http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_30/Syrian-rebels-take-responsibility-for-the-chemical-attack-admitting-the-weapons-were-provided-by-Saudis-1203/ 'Syrian rebels take responsibility for the chemical attack admitting the weapons were provided by Saudis' - source ]</ref><ref>[[infowars.com]], 30 August 2013, [http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-syrians-in-ghouta-claim-saudi-supplied-rebels-behind-chemical-attack/ EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack]</ref><ref>Lisa Pease, [[ConsortiumNews.com]], 4 September 2013, [http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/04/the-still-sketchy-intel-on-syria/ The Still-Sketchy Intel on Syria]</ref><ref>[[Press TV]], 1 September 2013, [http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/30/321260/syria-militants-use-saudisupplied-gas/ Saudi Prince Bandar behind chemical attack in Syria: Report]</ref><ref>''[[ABC (newspaper)|ABC]]'', 2 September 2013, [http://www.abc.es/internacional/20130831/abci-siria-quimicas-rebeldes-201308311738.html Una colaboradora de AP afirma que el ataque en Damasco fue obra de los rebeldes]</ref> |
||
== References == |
== References == |
Revision as of 20:43, 16 September 2013
Type of site | News website |
---|---|
Available in | English |
URL | mintpressnews |
Commercial | Yes |
Registration | Optional |
Launched | 2012 |
Mint Press News (MPN) is a US news website established in January 2012, based in Minnesota.[1] MPN aims to bring foreign news to a US audience, with a particular focus on the Middle East.[2] In September 2013 it listed ten reporters on its website.[3]
History
Mint Press News was founded in January 2012 by Mnar A. Muhawesh, a Minnesota-born daughter of Palestinian immigrants, and journalism graduate of St. Cloud State University. MPN's planned to break even within three years, with a business plan based on advertising.[1] In January 2012 MPN's investors were said to be unnamed "retired businesspeople" — described by MinnPost as "unfortunate for a journalism operation fighting alongside people seeking transparency."[1] A "key adviser" of MPN is the editor's father-in-law Odeh Muhawesh, a businessman and adjunct theology professor at the University of St. Thomas.[1][4]
In August 2013 Mint Press News was characterized as a 'Shia advocacy site' on PJ Media.[5]
In September 2013 MPN reported, based on what it said were interviews with rebels in Damascus, that the Al-Nusra Front was responsible for the chemical weapons incidents in Ghouta; it reported that weapons had been delivered to untrained fighters and 'some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions'. The report was "widely circulated"[6] and was cited among others by Russian and Iranian state press, as well as the Spanish ABC newspaper; also by consortium.com and infowars.com.[7][8][9][10][11][12]
References
- ^ a b c d David Brauer, MinnPost, 18 January 2012, Who is MintPress and why are they doing all this hiring?
- ^ Leah Binkovitz, Columbia Journalism Review, 28 March 2012, Mint Press News
- ^ Mint Press News, About MPN, accessed 4 September 2013
- ^ University of St. Thomas, Muhawesh, Odeh
- ^ Bridget Johnson, PJ Media, 31 August 2013, Shia ‘Advocacy Journalism’ Behind Story Claiming Saudis Gave Rebels Chemical Weapons
- ^ Bryant Jordan, 10 September 2013, military.com, White House Mum on Rebel Chem Weapons Use
- ^ Jim Naureckas, 1 September 2013, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?
- ^ Voice of Russia, 30 August 2013, 'Syrian rebels take responsibility for the chemical attack admitting the weapons were provided by Saudis' - source
- ^ infowars.com, 30 August 2013, EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
- ^ Lisa Pease, ConsortiumNews.com, 4 September 2013, The Still-Sketchy Intel on Syria
- ^ Press TV, 1 September 2013, Saudi Prince Bandar behind chemical attack in Syria: Report
- ^ ABC, 2 September 2013, Una colaboradora de AP afirma que el ataque en Damasco fue obra de los rebeldes