Sure. BBC World Service wiki page describes some of the history/scandals [1]. For example, there has always been a MI5 office inside BBC headquarters. More in depth investigative journalism has been done by Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthal, et al. [2], specifically this article is very damning and caused Twitter to implement a warning label about "potentially hacked materials" (implying they are true) [3]
Do you have any that isn't presented by people who actively spread Russian propaganda?.
Perhaps an article from a website that isn't actively known for misleading reporting and being sympathetic to authoritarian regimes.
The wikipage on the grey zone is pretty damning. I mean using these people as a source for anything on the west that is critical would be a huge mistake.
> The website published pro-Russian propaganda during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including the debunked claim that Ukrainian fighters were using civilians as human shields, and that the Mariupol theatre attack was staged by the Azov Regiment.[24] The Russian fake news website Peace Data republished articles by The Grayzone in order to build a reputation as a progressive and anti-West media source and to attract contributors.[38]
Sorry, can you address any of the claims made by the journalists? or only engage in smears?
Why do you think Twitter added a "hacked materials" warning to that article instead of simply removing it as "Russian misinformation", as they have repeatedly, and perhaps justifiably done for other tweets?
Wikipedia is totally unreliable for controversial topics that challenge the media establishment. Just look at their list of "reliable sources". It's a bad joke!
