4 ms·
There was a time when government documents and quotes from primary sources were considered evidence. What point would materially change if it were distributed
by stickyricky 5y ago
There was a time when government documents and quotes from primary sources were considered evidence. What point would materially change if it were distributed on CNN.com?
- munchler 5y agoMost informed citizens don't have the time or expertise to consume primary sources directly. It's extremely useful to have a trusted news source do this for us, and then present their findings in an easily understood article.
- totalZero 5y agoThe article makes almost zero effort to explain references to primary sources. It just has a list of documents at the end. I have no idea how to sort through and verify any of the claims made by the author.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- gojomo 5y agoWell, I don't know the reputation of 'occupythefed.substack.com' from a long-history of reporting. What they purport to be valid images, & interpretations, of "government documents" may or may not be. If & when other outlets with more legible reputations (as well as known biases) pick up the same evidence, I'll have more trust in this outlet's claims.
- ketzo 5y agoIt would have had to pass through a major news organization's in-house fact checking apparatus. I know CNN is pretty liberally biased, and blind trust in news organizations is a bad idea. But I think it's disingenuous to say that "government documents and quotes from primary sources" on a tiny Substack hold the same weight as information that goes out on the nightly news.