4 ms·

I thought links to sources were preferred over blogs regurgitating them? It would have been just as easy to simply link to the Guardian article [1]. Supposedly

• ErrantX 17y ago
  Well as the guardian is prevented from publishing the question it probably makes sense to link to someone who can tie up the whole story...
  • danw 17y ago
    In which case pointing the story link at wikileaks which carries the report, the MPs question and a link to the Guardian "we're gagged" story would have been best.
    • ErrantX 17y ago
      You mean rather like this blog does... ;) Sorry I don't mean to "fight" over it but the Spectator is press as well.
      • ionfish 17y ago
        They're still a secondary source, regardless of how well they happen to be credentialed.
        • ErrantX 17y ago
          As is Wikileaks
          • ionfish 17y ago
            Wikileaks is a provider of primary sources, like any good historical archive. In this case it's providing a PDF of the Minton report. The summary Wikileaks provide is, of course, a secondary source, but people are linking to the page because it hosts the PDF, not because it happens to summarise the contents of the report and its historical context. The Guardian, reporting on the Trafigura case, are a secondary source (when referencing the report), and a primary source when writing about the gagging order that has been applied to them. The Spectator blog article is a secondary source writing about the gagging order. These distinctions are standard in both historiography and journalism.
• adw 17y ago
  The Spectator's press too - it's more or less Time with a PhD and a serious crush on Thatcherism.