Has anyone ever heard of oilprice.com before? What's its rep as a news source, who owns it, what kinds of big stories has it had before this, etc.?
I want Hillary to face the music for any and all illegal risks she took with secure communications as much as anybody, but this article is so full of weasel words, implied-but-not-cited sources, and vague wording that I'm not inclined to give it much weight - especially if the site's biases and ownership are shrouded in as much smoke and mirrors as the article's "source."
http://oilprice.com/about-us
Looks like they write a lot in the energy sector and get published in credible publications about energy. Maybe they don't like Hillary!
Thanks. Just got back from researching the site myself. Seems legit, with mostly the natural bias toward fossil fuel-positive coverage. Doesn't really excuse the rumor-as-fact nature of the piece, but I guess that's not the site's primary MO.
I don't like Hillary either, but I'm very wary of sources that play to that feeling, given all the shady sites that also don't like her. So I err on the side of caution when I can. A shared distrust of one person does not mean I want to give clicks or upvotes to Russian propaganda or paranoid far-right/far-left delusions.
Has anyone ever heard of oilprice.com before? What's its rep as a news source, who owns it, what kinds of big stories has it had before this, etc.?
I want Hillary to face the music for any and all illegal risks she took with secure communications as much as anybody, but this article is so full of weasel words, implied-but-not-cited sources, and vague wording that I'm not inclined to give it much weight - especially if the site's biases and ownership are shrouded in as much smoke and mirrors as the article's "source."
http://oilprice.com/about-us Looks like they write a lot in the energy sector and get published in credible publications about energy. Maybe they don't like Hillary!
Thanks. Just got back from researching the site myself. Seems legit, with mostly the natural bias toward fossil fuel-positive coverage. Doesn't really excuse the rumor-as-fact nature of the piece, but I guess that's not the site's primary MO.
I don't like Hillary either, but I'm very wary of sources that play to that feeling, given all the shady sites that also don't like her. So I err on the side of caution when I can. A shared distrust of one person does not mean I want to give clicks or upvotes to Russian propaganda or paranoid far-right/far-left delusions.