But given the SCMP'S and Minnie Chan's track record it seems as if they take facts not very seriously anyway
I feel so, they may treat the defence substances moreover the details or technical things liberally or loosely, just another kind of everyday news
hehehe
However, if I expand my comment a bit more, and to be fairer, most publication nowadays have low standard of accuracy, for whatsoever reasons!
Just for illustration, take any publication in English language talking about the number of nuclear warheads, most still blindly yet confidently cited the figure supplied by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) that China only has about 300 nuke heads, a number FAS created from 1990s. And unbelievably unchanged to this date with all the newcomer presence (DF-41, DF-31 etc). Just amazing. A long time member here,
@Martian (my apology if the user ID is incorrect) dedicated many pages to debunk this fallacy, then Shanlung/SDF had great exposition too delved into this impossibility.
So, what kind of things like this are telling us, the readers?
For me, I just take the relevant part and ignore the rest of substances incl the many trashes. For in reality it's very difficult to find any English language publication giving the good accuracy and not embedding any political bias inside. If I set my strict measure then I eventually may not read 95% of the publication, news, articles etc… nowadays only some authors are willing to write with good standard and trying to be objective! At the end I just try to be realistic and pragmatic, as I just said, “take what's relevant then ignore the rest incl the garbage!”
just my two cents
