Recognising An Aggregator Versus Original Reporting
Launch library · evergreen read
An aggregator collects and summarises reporting done elsewhere by other outlets rather than conducting any original research itself from scratch. This is a legitimate and genuinely useful function in its own right, but it means the underlying credibility of the story rests entirely with the original source, not with the aggregator simply repeating it.
Checking whether an article clearly cites and links to its original source, or simply restates a claim without any clear attribution at all, quickly reveals which category it actually falls into. Original reporting typically shows direct evidence of independent work undertaken: interviews conducted, documents obtained, firsthand observation made.
Tracing an aggregated story back to its original source, where one genuinely exists and can be found, and evaluating that original source directly gives a far more reliable basis for judgement than assessing the aggregated version alone ever could manage entirely by itself, without any of that context.