> I get it's a hard problem. The primary source could have reasons to lie. I've just seen too many cases where I've seen the secondary source was wrong either b

> I get it's a hard problem. The primary source could have reasons to lie. I've just seen too many cases where I've seen the secondary source was wrong either being the primary source or being at the primary source. I've seen just as many cases where the subject of some article tried to influence it, bend it, or outright fake facts on it. Believing them could be considered worse than a bunch of secondary sources. Those are obviously not bullet-proof either, but there is more inertia to it to fake it. Like paper ballots. In theory, can be faked, but the endeavor is enormous. You're right. It's a hard problem.