I like ZH, but of course you're correct; they aren't perfect. With any source, we must be skeptical. That goes without saying. When I read something interesting anywhere that I haven't seen before, I still have to go and see what is said about the subject in other sources.

Part of the reason I've come to appreciate ZH is precisely because of the responses they generate. I will look at how the mainstream responds to what they publish, and those responses are so absurdly, desperately pathetic that it confirms the original datapoint. I always look for balance to whatever perspective is put forth. I am consistently amazed by the low quality of the responses by the mainstream when they attempt to "debunk" what ZH has written. It's the over-the-top-crap quality of their "debunking" that very often solidifies the original ZH story for me.

Do they have a biased perspective? Absolutely, and I don't always agree with it, but I do always respect that their perspective can reasonably be reached with the factual information they present (whether I agree or not, at least it's a consistent argument). In the mainstream universe they long ago divorced their opinions from any actual factual evidence on the ground. Their perspective doesn't even remotely fit the obvious reality on the ground. The classic example being "fiery but mostly peaceful".

It's amazing to witness, as we on here are all so familiar with.