From the current version of the article:
"His posturing as "whistleblower" provides no new information and is at odds with the establishment friendly islamophobic books and front groups he operated."
I don't follow, how is it at odds, which establishment, which part of it?
"It is incomplete because researchers such as [...] have shown that direct control of journalists is a rare exception today."
Hmm, clueless people do not know the spin that certain stories may need in each and every case. Don't think the intelligence agencies will get rid of this capability - and then one may ask how many have taken the money then and how many are now. I have not read that book, but I assume that Ulfkotte does not mention the selection process, which itself might be worth mentioning when that is so.
"Of concern was the way Ulfkotte implies that by revealing this incomplete and outdated information his life might be at danger, which makes it easy to question the mental health of those citing his "revelations": "
How is it a mental health an issue when Ulfkotte is the person from which you learned about these things, Ulfkotte having the alt-media attention that he had in Germany. is this proper framing at all? -- Sunvalley (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)