OP stated that Zero Hedge has not been found credible by some fact checking organization. I'm asking what makes them credible to make those judgment calls. It's not incumbent on me to assume their competence and/or objectivity and expand effort to prove otherwise.
Even if zero hedge has an extreme right bias, does that mean everything they report is fake news? Was seth rich really shot twice in the back and not robbed despite the official story saying he's a robbery victim? He certainly had access to the DNC emails and was a devote bernie sanders supporter. It's a low barrier to connect those dots and it becomes even more suspicious when left wing media and "fact checking" websites jump to calling it a conspiracy theory. It seems a lot more likely than the russian story which is falling apart every day with official memos saying hillary pushed the russian narrative to distract from her email server. I'd love to believe we live in a fair and just society, but maybe we dont.
It's also true that you can respond to the substance of ZeroHedge's analysis in the article in question rather than deferring to a third party who made an assessment of ZeroHedge's general trustworthiness.
