I don't understand how a primary source can be biased. It is factual evidence in and of itself. Wikileaks' leaks have little to no editorialization (Usually t

I don't understand how a primary source can be biased. It is factual evidence in and of itself. Wikileaks' leaks have little to no editorialization (Usually there is a 'summary' in front of the db). Have you read the content of wikileaks' leaks? Their twitter account is a partisan mess, but their actual leaks are some of the most solid journalism of our era.