> people should be considering that separately from the Assange case
Strongly disagree on this point.
I've been reading Craig's reporting, because it's the best that is available as a result of the court, but it being from a less than credible source makes it significantly less valuable.
When reading I never know to what extent he is cherry picking the facts he chooses to report based on his obvious and pre-existing bias. This isn't necessarily even intentional on Craig's part, it's just a fact that people notice things that confirm their existing world view more than things that challenge it.
When reading I have to make a conscious effort to separate the factual matters reported on, from Craig's personal opinion of the situation. The strength of Craig's conviction his world views means his writing has a lower signal to noise ratio than is typical. Moreover the extreme point of view that is likely wrong (as evidenced by him believing "strange conspiracy theories" that I do not) means that the noise doesn't tend to cancel out, but is instead systematically biased.
Craig is almost certainly better than nothing (at least if you're going in eyes wide open about the kind of writing you are reading), but far from ideal.
Strongly disagree on this point.
I've been reading Craig's reporting, because it's the best that is available as a result of the court, but it being from a less than credible source makes it significantly less valuable.
When reading I never know to what extent he is cherry picking the facts he chooses to report based on his obvious and pre-existing bias. This isn't necessarily even intentional on Craig's part, it's just a fact that people notice things that confirm their existing world view more than things that challenge it.
When reading I have to make a conscious effort to separate the factual matters reported on, from Craig's personal opinion of the situation. The strength of Craig's conviction his world views means his writing has a lower signal to noise ratio than is typical. Moreover the extreme point of view that is likely wrong (as evidenced by him believing "strange conspiracy theories" that I do not) means that the noise doesn't tend to cancel out, but is instead systematically biased.
Craig is almost certainly better than nothing (at least if you're going in eyes wide open about the kind of writing you are reading), but far from ideal.