Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Your source uses the word "correction" once (in searchable text), #18, about the detail of whether the Republican opposition research into Trump actually hired Steele, when (according to your own source) instead they hired the firm that hired Steele, but he didn't actually join the project until Clinton took over payment. It's good that it got corrected, but it's hardly something significant.

Your source uses the word "warrant" in one section (in searchable text), #12, where the reporting was accurate in that warrants had been issued. Whether the warrant should have been issued is a different question.

You'll note I qualified searchable, because I have no desire to read the entire massive text of bullet points, although I did try to find relevant ones and your best example. I did try to scan it for other corrections (because this site believes in "text in screenshots), and they were all either minor [0] of they were correct reporting [1].

[0] Example: All 17 intelligence agencies didn't say X, only the agency who coordinates information between, oversees and synthesizes their information did (and the big three of CIA, FBI and NSA)

[1] Example: Report on Day X, Government investigating Y. Report on Day X + N, Government investigation into Y turns up Z. Sometimes the Z is "nothing". You know, or the warrant reporting example above.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: