Because when you put time and resources into fancy graphics and trendy webdesign, it gives the impression that you're not trying to just present the facts, but a constructed narrative that's supposed to make things appear a certain way.
You do know that there are companies that can be hired to make sites these days? That the newspaper behind this actually does have specialist staff to do it?
And, for ****'s sake,
of course these people are presenting a constructed narrative. They're
journalists. It's what journalists
do, what they have always done. It's what wikileaks et al
have also done in the past.
it means this has been sat on for at least as long as it has taken for there to be a fancy site to be put together. and what zoo said. and its more the fact I can't look through the material myself and have to trust in in objectivity of the reporters reporting on it, and reporters have been ****ting on objectivity as a virtue in recent years.
It has been "sat on" for more than a year by this point. If by "sat on" you mean analyzed, investigated and corroborated. You know, because this was leaked to a
Newspaper, not a random webserver.
Personally, I find this argument that you can only trust leaks like this if you can examine the source personally to be spurious. Because you, Bobboau, can't. You likely do not have the time to do it, you may not have the skills to do it. You'd be relying on other people's commentary for it, and what exactly makes
them trustworthy or objective?
