I've never heard of this outlet before. Does anyone know about them (who owns them, if they have typical journalistic standards, etc.)? I typically check these things when I come across a news site that I was not previously aware of, especially when the content relates to contentious topics.

▲

john-h-k a day ago | parent | next [-]

> The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which functions as a front for Israeli intelligence in the US

This sentence does not appear to be backed up by the article it is linking to, and the vibe of it makes me somewhat suspicious of the outlet.

Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid

▲

ajsidnbc a day ago | parent | next [-]

> the vibe of it makes me somewhat suspicious of the outlet. Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid

You see an obviously ludicrous bill, and instead of asking “How did this bill even get here in the first place?” you instead question whether or not the source is (I’m assuming) anti semitic?

I’m assuming you’re acting in good faith, because otherwise that’s a very underhanded way to run defense for a genocidal ideology.

That this law was even proposed indicates there’s some very anti-American forces running our government.

	▲	apparent a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		When someone wonders about the the journalistic bona fides of an outlet, it is often because they want to know if the information being presented is accurate and balanced. For example, do they mention that the bill has a carveout for First Amendment protected speech? I didn't see that mentioned, but it's right there in the bill, below the definition of "material support" (which they also don't cite). These definitions may be applied in ways that are not fair by the government, but any journalistic outlet worth its salt would include them in their writeup. It seems that this article is more meant to raise alarm and paint the other side as extremists, rather than inform the readership about what has actually been proposed (with all its warts).
	▲	john-h-k a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		See the last line of my comment. > Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid All i was doing was saying specific wording used in the article causes me to update slightly against the site being unbiased and neutral. There is no grand conspiracy by me here. There is no comment nor opinion on Israel/Palestine within the comment.
	▲	_DeadFred_ a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The top comment on HN discussions often devolve into various other discussions. Funny that is never 'underhanded' discussion, but outside of the pale when it comes to this topic. You can't have a good faith HN discussion on this topic. Normally on HN people refute arguments, not resort to just 'bad faith'.

▲

TimorousBestie a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The article it cites says this (emphasis added):

> For much of its history, the ADL has operated in the United States as if it were a hostile intelligence organization—which, in essence, it was. The organization’s spymaster was Irwin Suall, who from the 1960s to 1997 ran his nationwide network of agents and informants from the ADL’s New York City headquarters. As millions of dollars in donations flowed into the “civil rights” organization, tens of thousands of dollars flowed out to Suall’s clandestine operatives in the field, actively engaged in violating the civil rights of thousands of Americans. Among his agents was Roy Bullock, a beefy San Franciscan with the codename “Cal” who posed as a small-time art dealer in the Castro District and spied undercover in the US for the ADL. To hide the ADL’s involvement, Bullock’s payments were laundered through a Beverly Hills attorney who, Bullock would later tell authorities, never missed a payment in more than three decades. Bullock said he would submit his reports to the ADL’s executive director in San Francisco, Richard Hirschhaut, now the regional director of the American Jewish Committee for Los Angeles.

This supports the stated claim. You can dispute the facts in this citation, of course (I don’t take them as the gospel truth myself), but The Cradle didn’t cite it incorrectly.

▲

john-h-k a day ago | parent [-]

Acting like a hostile intelligence agency != being a front for Israeli intelligence

	▲	TimorousBestie a day ago \| parent [-]
		1. The links to Israel are made elsewhere in The Nation article, I already copy-pasted more than I wanted to. 2. The Cradle didn’t say “being a front”, they said “functions as a [front]” which is equivalent to “acting like a” front. Honestly, the word “functions” was the hyperlink to The Nation article. So surely you saw it?

▲

Belopolye a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've followed The Cradle for a couple of years. For what it's worth I've been able to corroborate much of what is published against other sources, and I believe it's entirely funded by donations.

Rather biased against NATO and Israel, but I suppose that could be a good or bad thing depending on one's perspective.

▲

ceejayoz a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://theintercept.com/2025/09/13/marco-rubio-revoke-us-pa... / https://archive.is/ND49e

▲

ks2048 a day ago | parent [-]

At lest The Intercept links to a page for the congressional hearing, but I don't know why they don't say which bill or amendment this is referring to.

	▲	ceejayoz a day ago \| parent [-]
		It's in HR 5300. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300... SEC. 226. No passports for terrorists and traffickers.

▲

this2shallPass a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I hadn't heard of them either so I checked online. I usually check Media Bias / Fact Check and AllSides when I encounter a news source with which I'm not familiar.

1. Media Bias / Fact Check:

Funded by / Ownership

The Cradle lacks transparency as it does not disclose who owns it. Revenue is generated through donations.

Analysis / Bias

The Cradle’s content frequently opposes Israeli policies and Western geopolitical stances, particularly focusing on West Asian politics. Articles often critique far-right Israeli politicians and highlight regional issues from a perspective that challenges mainstream Western narratives. Articles and headlines often use loaded emotional language in opposition to Israeli policy like this Cracks deepen in Israel as opposition head issues ‘ultimatum’ to Netanyahu. This story is correctly sourced from the Times of Israel and Haaretz.

Editorially, The Cradle consistently frames Israel negatively with stories such as this On Israel and rape. While this article is sourced properly from credible sources, it is entirely one-sided in focusing on Israel. When reporting on the United States, they often report negatively on President Joe Biden like this ‘Biden has the blood of innocent people on his hands’: Former US official.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-cradle-bias-and-credibili...

2. AllSides:

The Cradle Rated Lean Left in January 2024 Independent Review

An independent AllSides reviewer opted to give The Cradle an initial rating of Lean Left.

While it demonstrated a clear opposition to Israel and the West, The Cradle did not appear to weigh in on other topics relevant to right-left U.S. politics. Site searches for "liberal," "conservative," "right-wing," and "left-wing" yielded few results.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cradle-media-bias

▲

Dilettante_ a day ago | parent [-]

Thanks ChatGPT.

Edit: Parent edited their comment and added their sources.

▲

this2shallPass a day ago | parent | next [-]

Google, but you're welcome.

	▲	rolph a day ago \| parent [-]
		any AI by another name, would smell just as pungent.

▲

JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It looked like AI slop, but if you click through, they’re actually quoting their sources verbatim. (No clue how the source compiles its ratings, however.)

	▲	Dilettante_ a day ago \| parent [-]
		In my defence, the sources were not mentioned in the comment when I made my reply, only the very LLM-looking text excerpts.

▲

isr a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The Cradle is a pretty well respected analysis site, which is often referenced to by other independent journalists. Just as in the late 1930's-40's, most respected, independent journalists would have numerous headlines heavily critical of Nazism, similarly, most respected independent journalists today would have numerous headlines heavily critical of Zionism & Israel.

Case in point, the other comment referencing a headline "Israel & rape" from the Cradle. Well, that's because the Israeli's do have a mass campaign of both torture & rape on Palestinian prisoners/hostages. Which has been confirmed even by former State Dept officials. Not to mention OPEN ADMISSION of this policy, widely, across Israeli media & politics. Down to streaming the rapes live to HQ (one of which was the one that was leaked and went viral), and then openly glorifying the SELF-CONFESSING rapist live on TV.

None of the above is a sensationalising the truth. It's just a strict, verbatim recounting of the truth, as admitted to (in self glorifying terms) by the accused. So it's not a sign of bias. If the plain, unvarnished, completely verified truth feels like bias to anyone, that's not a commentary on the messenger. It's a commentary on the observer.

	▲	erxam 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's funny how people only question who owns an outlet when said outlet has the gall to report the truth. You never see people question the gaff that garbage like VOA or NPR spit out on a daily basis. (Also: look up '61% of israeli men'. That's what they're open to voluntarily admitting. You can only imagine how deep the rot goes inside that sick 'society'.)