Your point is well taken
However
*Someone* has to read the hostile media
I tried to listen to the Ingraham but didn’t get through
Agree. And I take your point about reading the hostile media. I am merely making a point that too often there is a tendancy here to rely on secondary sources about what was said or done, that are often incorrect, through laziness or malice, when perfectly good primary sources are available.
My chief complaint is when someone references an article saying a judge ruled thus and such instead of just posting the actual legal opinion, which often says something very different.
For instance in the Flynn case, there are lots of articles about what the COA ruled. In fact the COA ruled nothing and found a legal out that they don't really have through sloppy lazy legal reasoning avoiding for instance the recent ruling by Ginsburg that said the trial court can't do the things it is doing. But they took that out to duck the issue. That summa of judicial intellectuality Merrick Garland signed off on that utter horseshit, which shows he cares not a wit for his reputation for judicial reasoning. He probably doesn't care, because he probably got his Harvard accolades from telling faculty the things they wanted to hear and he knows he doesn't measure up.
But you wouldn't know that from reading anything in the press on the subject.