What's your source?

[KevinKohler]

I am so tired of seeing the source of information attacked, rather than simply dealing with the info at hand. Now, I get it, if someone posts "facts" from, like, Alex Jones, or something like that, then yeah, I might be a little bit critical of the source. But a lot of times, I get the impression that most folks don't even read links, if it's not a source they approve of. For god's sake, even Alex Jones is bound to get something correct at least ONCE IN A WHILE. I am tired of seeing people disparage the sources for information, rather than debating the info provided.

Can we get a list of decent sources for info, guys? Who can any of us use as a source for facts and figures that won't get discounted out of hand, for whatever reason? Anyone wanna take a stab at compiling a list? This will likely lead to heated debate, lol. So, grab some pop corn, and watch it happen. Could be, we need no other debate thread, other than one strictly devoted to denouncing others' sources for material.:lamo

 

[whysoserious]

I get a lot of it from here. What better source of information is there than a group of people providing different sources and debating about which one is right? I get my "Media Idiocy" news from the Daily Show or Colbert Report, because no one calls out Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc like those shows - it cracks me up. NPR has some decent shows on in the morning, and Talk of the Nation isn't bad either (though I have never gotten the little quiz they do once a week). I think any AP article is a decent way to start, as the AP tends to stay as neutral as they can.

Almost all information should be cross-referenced if possible, but those sources have always proved pretty reliable to me.

 

[Redress]

It depends on the source. If some one uses a blogspot post for a source, or a youtube from some random guy, or an editorial, or Media Matters, or Gateway Pundit, or WND, then it is not even worth reading the source. The information is not credible based on the source. If the source is a study, it's fair to point out that it is a liberal or conservative think tank that provided the source, or problems with the people using the source, but that does not really discount the information contained. In that case source arguments just cast doubt but do not disprove. Studies from neutral groups, mainstream media sources, blogs with decent reputations(Politico springs to mind), major fact check sources(Politifact or factcheck), then attacking the source is silly.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

My source is the source of all knowledge.

 

[Xerographica]

If Redress had actually visited my blog entry on the opportunity costs of public transportation then he would have realized that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was the source of my statistics.

 

[poweRob]

Attacking sources is fair game IMO.

Therefore, in a debate, if I can google and pull from a source that makes the opposition swallow their tongue because it is a source I think they'd use, all the better.

 

[Redress]

If Redress had actually visited my blog entry on the opportunity costs of public transportation then he would have realized that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was the source of my statistics.

I do not even click on blogspot sources. I don't give free traffic. If you want to source the National Highway Safety Traffic Safety Administration, then link to them. I will click on that link, and then I know I am getting the honest stats, not some ones claims about those numbers.

 

[MrMindSpeaker]

i just make **** up as i go

for real though i try to stay out of the debate if i dont trust the source or am too lazy to read it for my self!