Well rather than reading anonymous accounts who aggregate what real journalists are reporting from the courtroom while interspersing random conspiracy theories, it seemed useful to just link to the real journalists directly.
An extra benefit is that since the journalists are reputable, their accounts are unlikely to be deleted or suspended.
Fair but it’s an appeal to authority and skirts true Scotsman but… never the less on occasion reputable journalists are leveraged to plant narratives on behalf of interested parties because they are reputable, so there is that. It’s not as though very wealthy people were not ensnared by mr Epstein and would love to keep their involvement low key.
I mean, Julie K. Brown wrote like 30? articles about it, talked to 60+ victims, her reporting lead to Epstein's arrest, Acosta's resignation, Maxwell's trial -- I don't think she's "on the take".
Is it an appeal to authority to trust a primary source who is literally in the courtroom every day, instead of a random anonymous Twitter account just cribbing from primary sources?
I grant you she’s doing a good job, but that does not grant her a monopoly on fact. If only accredited journalists are allowed to report then we have no Wikileaks, no citizen journalism etc. Twitter is in the wrong to suppress an account on account of “artificially” inflating engagement. First, they don’t have to present evidence and second What news organ doesn’t create artificial engagement? It’s a preposterous excuse.
Real journalists as in they're literally in the courtroom reporting from the trial, and one of them wrote the series of articles that broke the Epstein thing wide open... vs. randos on Twitter just cribbing their reporting while writing "THREAD" at the top.
How is it remotely controversial to prefer primary sources.. As much as it annoys the very online, reporting isn't just writing twitter threads with your opinions, it actually takes fact finding effort.
