I'll question your sources when they have a history of not being reliable - pushing conspiracy theories, crossing the line between actual reporting and editorializing, stating "facts" that are quickly proven to be untrue. Sites like Breitbart, Daily Caller, Infowars, and OANN are completely unreliable for just those reasons. Quora is all opinion, no news - people there represent themselves as subject-matter experts, but there's no vetting, so you trust what you read at your own peril.
The way I consider a source reliable is very simple - what they're reporting has to be confirmed by at least two other sources. Beyond that, I make a distinction between news and editorial - anything labeled "Opinion" or "Analysis" is not news. When I was in college, I briefly flirted with journalism. What I learned then was that the keys to reporting were where, when, who, why, and how. Anything beyond that is editorial.
I'm confident that the sources I use are reliable, even if you don't like them for political reasons. But when someone throws up a cite from Quora as if it proves anything, I'll immediately reject it as unreliable.
What are your requirements for reliability?
LD has already said that she doesn't care whether what she posts is true - what she cares about is whether it agrees with her opinion. Is THAT a fair way to have a discussion? |