Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.

Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?
I understand where you are coming from and for major stories/issues I try to exclusively use generally respected outlets as far as the accuracy of their content and information is concerned like the BBC, Guardian, CNN, WSJ, etc. There are few claims I dismiss out of hand based on the source, I think people fantastically overestimate how much outright falsity is in the media, it's almost always mere perspective. The only thing I've noticed is that Fox, MSNBC, and to a lesser extent CNN seem willing to report more information when it comes to foreign policy issues/stories with far less/less reliable sources. This can simultaneously make them seem more sensationalistic but on occasion they beat competitors to the punch.

Now if you post something from RT, PressTV, Al-Alam, 'Global Research' (lol), or something like that then you should expect to see it heavily scrutinized if not outright dismissed because their reputations are so awful.