[aww_dang]

> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article.

There are at least two ways to interpret this:

1)If the Steele dossier is legitimate, then the author is propagandizing the issue.

2)If the Steele dossier is discredited (in some circles) propaganda, but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin. This experience could be a reflection of the information you consume.

In the interest of avoiding inflammatory discussions, I'll leave it to other commentators to discuss the veracity of either side.

[notavalleyman]

> but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin

You are quite right that I am lacking complete awareness, so I think it would behoove the author to at least link to something to back up their statement, and without sourcing it does feel like spin.

Similarly, there's a section of the article where the author suggests D-notices were used to suppress a link between Sergei Skripal's alleged handler and the Orbis Intelligence company whose founder wrote the dossier. There is again no souring or backing up this allegation. I didn't understand here either, why the author is using these unsourced points to discuss D Notices

[aww_dang]

I agree that sources are valuable and important. My preference would be that they are included. However they are rarely cited in a meaningful way, even in mainstream publications.

The beauty of these kinds of discussions is that one could spend about 5-10 minutes searching and come up with a plethora of sources supporting either claim from whichever side you prefer.

From this premise the sources become almost irrelevant. You could examine the source taking a given position on either issue and declare it false. You need only find a contradictory source suitable to your biases.

You could instead reason about the outcome of the accusations leveled in the Steele dossier. If those accusations were truthful, why was action not taken? Again, the partisan biases take hold:

1) Action was not taken because the dossier was fabricated

2) Action was not taken because the accused held political power

Getting back to the larger topic, I ask you: Does censorship enhance your ability to trust the media and discern information, or does it hinder it?

[notavalleyman]

Not having access to the names and methods of intelligence agencies doesn't hinder my trust in the media, no, and I can't really establish from this article that much more than that is happening. If anything it boosts my trust, knowing that these publications are considered legitimate enough by the UK government to be on their d-notice distribution list.

[aww_dang]

That is certainly one way of looking at it. The government confers reputability onto the press. If that is an appropriate role for the state in your view, you need not examine further.

Another perspective might observe that Pravda was similarly considered "legitimate enough" by the USSR.

Which of these best describes the information bubble you found yourself in at the top of the thread?

[notavalleyman]

I'm not even sure what you're asking, sorry. I don't think you can infer I'm in some bubble, or my head's in the sand, because I don't conclude from this article that we should scrap the official secrets act