A little of both. I agree with much of what I've read thus far (good), but the journalism isn't corroborated well and not balanced well with other facts (bad) that would help those of us who want to use the site as a factual resource. For example, were I to send one of the articles to someone as evidence, they would correct when noting that the article is not appropriately supported by evidence. I've seen some of the evidence that the articles do not mention, so I find the website useful for articles that can supplement other forms of better journalism (eg. balanced and with better evidence). As I look at the front page, I agree with notes on 911, Israeli lobby, ISIS, Syria, Libya, Chavez &c. But the articles tend toward opinions that are written as rants - and though they might be the start of good research - they are not developed. The biases of the site are so heavily pitched that hardly anyone will take it seriously. Thus the articles are best paired with better examples of reports and evidence.

When trying to develop an argument for - say the Israeli lobby abuse of Corbyn - the audience for that argument will only take you seriously if they respect your approaches, your use of evidence, and your way of balancing the argument. One can put together a long list of unwarranted attacks against Corbyn by the Israeli lobby, and develop a good argument for that. He and others merely supported Palestinians. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, by any standard, even among many Jews (supposedly). But Corbyn was also holding his party back when he did not respond appropriately to those accusations. You have to fight fire with fire. He was appropriately criticized as a useless politician. I like him, but when he failed to take on the Tories in his 1st year, he should have stepped down and let another person have a go. He's a good person but a terrible poitician and leader. To be fair, the person who followed him wasn't much better. The UK news media chewed them both up and spit them out. Boris and other politicians have had a way of dealing with this news media, which is essential for politicians. They do so by making deals, developing support, and by working 24/7 on PR. And - try not to piss off too many who are aligned with the powerful opposition and Israeli lobby. It's like navigating through a political gauntlet.

Empirestrikesblack.com adds to the discussion, but offers only one side of the argument, without doing the necessary legwork to for some of the imporant the evidence. Why is this? Because they don't have to do this for their particular audience. Politics is now so polarized that websites like this can manage with their respective audiences, without trying to improve their articles for a wider audience. The are useful, however, for starting, or adding to, the broader conversation.