|
|
|
|
|
by aww_dang
1510 days ago
|
|
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? |
|