I have read some of your writing and agreed or partially agreed. This is not such a case.
Here you are writing about an article that I read in its entirety. Your premise and title is based almost completely on the substance of that article. But it’s a very weak article. By my count, there are only three sources other than the author’s that are intended to support the argument. One is a link to speedtest.net, which is used to substantiate a humorous technical argument about how 22 Mbps (EDIT: Correction, 22MBps, or 176Mbps) is unsustainable across the ocean (after 3 decades in computer work, I will make an unsubstantiated claim that I have expertise in this topic :-) )
Letting this one go, the rest is unsubstantiated text. Whether you believe the hypothesis of the article is a distinct question, as I have no doubt you do. I also have no doubt that many believe it.
I also am confident that some large number of others believe the narrative of “russiagate” based on equally thin (who knows, maybe thinner) evidence from … alternate facts?
I find myself in the middle. I read the news from multiple sources, not all mainstream. I do research. I find neither Rachel Maddow nor Rush Limbaugh to be credible, although each does a good job of digging up dirt and weaving a narrative. I find the New York Times to be largely credible, that is, they report facts on the whole, but their facts are highly skewed toward a liberal narrative. I have not found an equally credible source on the conservative side (at least not in daily news reporting). I have found several strongly conservative viewpoints that provide facts I can usually confirm.
Still, news is just that, new. It is what has occurred today, hopefully factual. Thus, any conclusions I may draw are tentative at the very best. I am by no means immune to confirmation bias, but I try hard to check my assumptions whenever possible. Until then, I don’t draw too many conclusions.
I’ll conclude that Russia hacked the election when I have a strong set of facts I am able to verify. I’ll be swayed by evidence as it develops until then, while carefully considering the biases of those who present it.
I think this piece has betrayed your biases.
You are a very good writer. But your writing could be bolstered by providing primary source links. Linking to weak sources only undermines your points, which are, on the whole, quite reasonable.
