I do lean on commentary a bit. Primary sources tend to be dense, or rely on specialist knowledge. But the key difference, I think, is I prefer commentators who

I do lean on commentary a bit. Primary sources tend to be dense, or rely on specialist knowledge. But the key difference, I think, is I prefer commentators who refer to primary sources, explain what it means, and explain the ways it could be or is misunderstood. So my main input on a subject I'm not invested in enough to be knowledgeable about might be (for example) Abigail Thorn or LegalEagle, but they don't stand in for the source with their own heavily biased spin. I think the main difference is how seriously an entertainer takes the material. Even John Oliver cites sources and has a team of researchers and writers who try to make sure they represent the source material accurately.