The ABC article is a direct reprint of the AP article. It also says so. The EU Pravda article is a summary.
But sure, if you want to argue that the ABC article is not technically the primary source, I guess. It didn’t alter anything from the primary source, however. You can see that for yourself.
Maybe. I just worry about the lack of critical thought people already have when it comes to articles posted here since they don’t read them. Now we’re at a point where even people who do read them are likely not to then click through and read the source of their information. That’s a couple of steps away from ‘my uncle on Facebook’ territory.
But whatever. Apparently the overwhelming consensus is that we don’t need primary sources, so I’m done.
Oh I don’t disagree with you one bit. I just thought I was getting that familiar scent of “I woke up in a fucking mood,” and I know from experience that “spoiling for a fight” isn’t good for me, so …
My previous comment was out of sincere concern for you, nothing more.
When talking about events in the US, about US politics, days before a very contentious US election, when we know there’s all sorts of foreign influence going on – posting a link that contains “pravda” could very easily be dismissed as propaganda at first glance. I’m coming to this post a bit later, and the double-checking of sources has already been done, but if I was here earlier, I would have insisted on it.
Do you not think primary sources should be linked above secondary sources?
Would you trust an American article summing up an article about Ukrainian politics from European Pravda, which has Ukrainian journalists writing about Ukraine from Ukraine, over just the European Pravda article?
Would you trust an American article summing up an article about Ukrainian politics from European Pravda, which has Ukrainian journalists writing about Ukraine from Ukraine, over just the European Pravda article?
But we can add to that: even if someone else told you it wasn’t that deep?
It’s an article about funny orange man sitting in a garbage truck on a web forum. I reject the question. It’s not that deep. Go repost with an article you prefer if you’re that bothered.
I’d trust an American article summing up an article about a Ukrainian dressing up as a garbage man, because it’s not really that important and I don’t feel obligated to do a deeper dive to understand it
Why did you post this story from a European website when there are plenty of domestic websites talking about it?
Especially when that website is just a rewrite of what was said on the ABC news page they link to at the top? This literally took seconds:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/donald-trump-boards-garbage-truck-draw-attention-biden-115334906
Did you even read the article before you posted it?
The irony when abcnews just copied the AP article, this is the primary source: https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-garbage-truck-wisconsin-1b9b2882b59639ba0dc898b0b45e395b
Did you even read the article before you posted it?
The ABC article is a direct reprint of the AP article. It also says so. The EU Pravda article is a summary.
But sure, if you want to argue that the ABC article is not technically the primary source, I guess. It didn’t alter anything from the primary source, however. You can see that for yourself.
This ain’t a hill worth dying on before sunrise, friend.
Maybe. I just worry about the lack of critical thought people already have when it comes to articles posted here since they don’t read them. Now we’re at a point where even people who do read them are likely not to then click through and read the source of their information. That’s a couple of steps away from ‘my uncle on Facebook’ territory.
But whatever. Apparently the overwhelming consensus is that we don’t need primary sources, so I’m done.
Oh I don’t disagree with you one bit. I just thought I was getting that familiar scent of “I woke up in a fucking mood,” and I know from experience that “spoiling for a fight” isn’t good for me, so …
My previous comment was out of sincere concern for you, nothing more.
Oh fair enough. I am definitely on the grumpy side this morning. And I think the election is not helping me or anyone else right now. I appreciate it.
We can’t always be “on” when it comes to righting wrongs. We’re in this together, and it’s a relay race.
Not everyone on the Internet is American and the original is linked. Do you just need something to complain about?
When talking about events in the US, about US politics, days before a very contentious US election, when we know there’s all sorts of foreign influence going on – posting a link that contains “pravda” could very easily be dismissed as propaganda at first glance. I’m coming to this post a bit later, and the double-checking of sources has already been done, but if I was here earlier, I would have insisted on it.
Do you not think primary sources should be linked above secondary sources?
Would you trust an American article summing up an article about Ukrainian politics from European Pravda, which has Ukrainian journalists writing about Ukraine from Ukraine, over just the European Pravda article?
I would hope not.
It’s really not that deep
That really doesn’t answer my question:
Would you trust an American article summing up an article about Ukrainian politics from European Pravda, which has Ukrainian journalists writing about Ukraine from Ukraine, over just the European Pravda article?
But we can add to that: even if someone else told you it wasn’t that deep?
It’s an article about funny orange man sitting in a garbage truck on a web forum. I reject the question. It’s not that deep. Go repost with an article you prefer if you’re that bothered.
I’d trust an American article summing up an article about a Ukrainian dressing up as a garbage man, because it’s not really that important and I don’t feel obligated to do a deeper dive to understand it