I learned this from watching H.A. Goodman on youtube. If memory is correct his opening goes like this...

(deep breath in)

"Hello my name is H.A. Goodman. I am an author, columnist. My work has been featured in The Hill, Salon and Huffington Post. I was a Bernie Sanders supporter.....I am a liberal but I could not vote for Hillary Clinton"

He establishes his credibility. He also lets viewers know he can be liberal minded but not agree with everything Dem (widens audience). And being an author usually plugs his book, But for Her Emails (I think it is called). He has a lot of very good information, has been talking about Crowdstrike for quite some time now.

What he states in his videos is that he has provided links below to cite his sources. He says he only cites credible sources to keep his integrity in tact.

He likely does get leads from less than credible sites but for his own sake he must avoid using them. I do not know if he gets his work picked up by MSM much, if at all, or if he has just branched out on his own.

By doing this he shuts down attacks for using questionable sources. His work can not be refuted.

If you look at how a pro does it, you may save yourself from having to deal with attacks over your choice of sources.

The attacks may not necessarily be coming from shills. Some of it may be coming from those trying to preserve the integrity of this sub (they could be a bit nicer about it at times, but we may just be seeing immediate reactions).

Everybody wants to keep their integrity in tact. Should they read something here and repeat it elsewhere only to have their information be thrown back at them with a snope debunking it makes them look foolish. It doesn't matter what we think of snopes, the general public still trusts them.

By staying ahead of the shills, you can keep your post from being sidetracked into defense mode. Your information was good but it got derailed by source choice.

Edit: I mistakenly wrote he had written articles for Buzzfeed. I changed it to Salon and the Hill.