I grew with this style of speech so it's is compl coherent to me. What she is saying, however, is well outside left-of-center norms on what can said aloud

She's saying that having the meetings, reaching a conclusive judgement and the having that judgment respected by society 1/n https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1358192901596073984

are what matter, not whether people at the meeting had relevant knowledge nor what the substantive content of their judgements turned out to be

Crucially, the reporter's insistence on fact is directly undermining the third objective, as they speak, bc she needs to have the 2/n

moral high ground on factual accuracy to be respected by society.

She doesn't need and it's actually counterproductive to pursue actual factual accuracy. Retaining the moral high ground is what does all work. 3/n