List of "sources" you should never use to support your position when you start a thread

[1srelluc]

When I see any of these (for the most part) I either reject them out of hand or try to find a less breathless report.

Breitbart

Huffington Post

Zero Hedge

Mother Jones

Gateway Pundit (kinda-sorta)

Rolling Stone

Ukrinform (Ukraine)

UT (Russia)

Tic-Tok

Feel free to add to the list.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

CNN

ABC

NBC

CBS

MSNBC

 

[Auld Phart]

Wikipedia
Fox

 

[1srelluc]

Wikipedia
Fox

It depends on Wiki.....Usually tech stuff is OK.

 

[AMart]

When I see any of these (for the most part) I either reject them out of hand or try to find a less breathless report.

Breitbart

Huffington Post

Zero Hedge

Mother Jones

Gateway Pundit (kinda-sorta)

Rolling Stone

Ukrinform (Ukraine)

UT (Russia)

Tic-Tok

Feel free to add to the list.

Rarely are they ever the source. Someone else is the source and then their writers use that source to spin an article.

 

[jwoodie]

I never use other's opinions to support my conclusions. Undisputed facts and logic are sufficient.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When I see any of these (for the most part) I either reject them out of hand or try to find a less breathless report.

Breitbart

Huffington Post

Zero Hedge

Mother Jones

Gateway Pundit (kinda-sorta)

Rolling Stone

Ukrinform (Ukraine)

UT (Russia)

Tic-Tok

Feel free to add to the list.

I try never to use wiki but sometimes I do.

 

[luiza]

When I see any of these (for the most part) I either reject them out of hand or try to find a less breathless report.

Breitbart

Huffington Post

Zero Hedge

Mother Jones

Gateway Pundit (kinda-sorta)

Rolling Stone

Ukrinform (Ukraine)

UT (Russia)

Tic-Tok

Feel free to add to the list.

The list is endless -- imo the MSM umbrella term best describes the trash. Notable omissions imo are BBC ,NYT and WaPo. I take exception to your including ZH and ask for a single example to support what I judge to be a huge basic error .

 

[1srelluc]

The list is endless -- imo the MSM umbrella term best describes the trash. Notable omissions imo are BBC ,NYT and WaPo. I take exception to your including ZH and ask for a single example to support what I judge to be a huge basic error .

ZH/UT....Never trust either of them.

Oh I forgot.....NPR.

 

[DudleySmith]

Mother Jones runs hot and cold. It changes editors so often it's a wonder they still publish. Some years it does good solid investigative work, many other years it's worse than NPR and PBS. NPR is a 24/7 propaganda hack outfit, and it's gotten a lot worse in the last two decades.

Here is sample of Mother Jones back when it tried to do real investigative reporting some years ago, 2001; don't recall who was the editor then.

Silence in the Fields

The U.S. government is allowing farmers to fill thousands of jobs with foreign 'guestworkers.' The conditions are hardly hospitable -- but those who speak out can be sent straight back home.

www.motherjones.com

 

[DudleySmith]

I try never to use wiki but sometimes I do.

Wiki can provide valid sources some of the time, others not so much. You have to check out the sources cited yourself and not assume anything.

 

[DudleySmith]

CNN

ABC

NBC

CBS

MSNBC

Yes, all of those are worthless.

 

[strollingbones]

faithful subscriber to mother jones

 

[MagicMike]

When I see any of these (for the most part) I either reject them out of hand or try to find a less breathless report.

Breitbart

Huffington Post

Zero Hedge

Mother Jones

Gateway Pundit (kinda-sorta)

Rolling Stone

Ukrinform (Ukraine)

UT (Russia)

Tic-Tok

Feel free to add to the list.

Newsmax

OAN

Thegatewaypundit

 

[Dadoalex]

When I see any of these (for the most part) I either reject them out of hand or try to find a less breathless report.

Breitbart

Huffington Post

Zero Hedge

Mother Jones

Gateway Pundit (kinda-sorta)

Rolling Stone

Ukrinform (Ukraine)

UT (Russia)

Tic-Tok

Feel free to add to the list.

Don't forget YouTube

AND

"sources" that are purely opinion based should not be used as "fact sources"

 

[DudleySmith]

When I see any of these (for the most part) I either reject them out of hand or try to find a less breathless report.

Breitbart

Huffington Post

Zero Hedge

Mother Jones

Gateway Pundit (kinda-sorta)

Rolling Stone

Ukrinform (Ukraine)

UT (Russia)

Tic-Tok

Feel free to add to the list.

Yes those mostly suck, too. I still like to cite them when they occasionally contradict some issue or other the commie parrots here babble some idiotic claim or other. lol

 

[Dadoalex]

Wiki can provide valid sources some of the time, others not so much. You have to check out the sources cited yourself and not assume anything.

I'll use WIKIPEDIA as a reference source or sanity check but I don't ever use it as a primary source.

 

[DudleySmith]

Don't forget YouTube

AND

"sources" that are purely opinion based should not be used as "fact sources"

many times there is info in opinion pieces that aren't widely reported in the various shill media pieces, so you're wrong, as usual.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

"Senior officials speaking on the condition of anonymity"

 

[Dadoalex]

many times there is info in opinion pieces that aren't widely reported in the various shill media pieces, so you're wrong, as usual.

So go ahead and use those opinions as "proof" that your opinion is right.
I don't argue with pigs.
I laugh at them

BWAHAHAHAHAHA