"←Is this stuff from the EPA getting much media play? I'm concerned that although the source is reliable and the material is relevant and interesting (including noting that this whole affair was a ""manufactured controversy""), it's really a primary source without much mainstream media coverage. There are a few secondary sources writing about the EPA's release, but not the sort of level I would describe as ""significant"". It could certainly be used as a reference for other stuff (like the aforementioned ""manufactured controversy"", ""stolen emails"", etc.), but I don't know if it's worth an addition in itself.    

"