One of the Voat users asked me to check the reliability of an article in lack of resources to do it by her/himself. Pizzagatejournalism is indeed for this purpose, but we are mainly here to guide and help users for doing it themselves instead of doing the job or them. Well, I made an exception, as this article soon got a remarkable amount on upvotes on /v/pizzagate/1850434 so I felt this might be important and it also makes an example of simple fact checking. The article in question:

Disobedient Media: Sources Claim That Comey Firing Could Result In Release Of Documents, Potential New Clinton Probe

As usual, I'm not handling the reliability of the whole site, as any media could publish both reliable and unreliable stuff. I focus on the reliability of a single article. In this case, the valuable part is clearly stated already in the topic, so let's just check if the article manages to make its topic.

The topic includes the following claims:

Comey firing could result in release of documents
There's a potential new Clinton probe
There is more than one source claiming these

Fact Check

I quote all the parts from the article content related to the above claims and their sources, and handle these quotes one by one

"emerging information appears to indicate that in the aftermath of Comey’s firing the FBI intends to begin releasing documents on the Clinton investigation and the Department of Justice may request a second look at the investigation"

"emerging information" in not sourced to any particular person or link, so the claim "FBI intends to begin releasing documents" can't be seen as reliable based on this content. I didn't find any better sources to support this claim either, not in this article, not elsewhere. In my understanding this is either a false interpretation by the author, or a false claim made in some purpose.

"Julian Assange tweeted that a source within the FBI had informed him that the Bureau would begin leaking documents from the investigation"

The tweet in question does not mention "documents from the investigation", but instead covers a much more general perspective: "FBI source says the FBI will now start leaking leaking like Niagara". Other content in the article does not source this claim either. In my understanding the Disobedient author either misread that tweet or added his own interpretation based on something else not sourced in the article.

"an additional source claimed that the Deputy Attorney General will now oversee a new Clinton probe following Comey’s dismissal, and would do so in close proximity to acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe for lack of trust."

Here, the linked source is a selection of Tweets by DustinSnider including replies instead of single tweets. This is bad use of sources already, but I went through the linked tweets to find out the ones the author might be referring to. I picked these two:

• https://twitter.com/DustinSnider/status/862066614698733568
• https://twitter.com/DustinSnider/status/862074474874667008

No further sources are present in these or any other of those tweets with replies, seemingly making the author to trust "Dustin" as a source. In this case, regarding the reliability, we should check if Dustin can be used as a reliable source. My notes:

1. He doesn't refer to his sources regarding these tweets
2. His Twitter account is unconfirmed

As a journalist, I would not take such tweets as a reliable source, especially not for any claims lifted to the topic. Let's move on.

"sources" (topic mention)

There were only one source for each claim made in the topic, so the use of the word "sources" could be seen as somewhat misleading. It delivers an interpretation that the article is well sourced, in which it fails, because these "sources" were either weak or misused.

Conclusion

The article, true or not, is unfortunately unreliable in its most important parts. It might not be a direct lie (note the use of "could" already in the topic), but it "could" be a lie as well. Reading the rest of the content, it seems there are both truth and false claims included, making it difficult for the reader to find it as unreliable (so, upvotes in /v/pizzagate are pretty understandable).

I would not recommend using this article as a source for other posts, or as a source for pizzagate investigations.