> <i>“What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom. The story you will read today is the truth as I worked for three months to find, with no pressure from a publisher, editors or peers to make it hew to certain lines of thought—or pare it back to assuage their fears. Substack simply means reporting is back . . . unfiltered and unprogrammed—just the way I like it.”</i><p>While it is true that past performance is no guarantee of future results, this piece describes his long professional experience with similar situations, where his reporting was first denied, later shown to be true and even got journalistic prizes for it.<p>That means he’s more likely than average to be right. He has his reputation at stake, and experience vetting anonymous sources.
> I won a Pulitzer Prize for international reporting for that work<p>Proof by authority?<p>> I’ve been told my stories were wrong, invented, outrageous for as long as I can remember<p>That doesn't mean that every story by him that is called wrong is right.<p>> What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom.<p>Freedom doesn't equate to truth. On the internet everybody can claim everything.<p>Especially if you are drawing from anonymous sources. Nobody else can verify those. And can you be sure that you aren't used as a tool for disinformation?