This lazy rhetorical trick might work on them, but not on us.

They will claim that these are not their sources but the overlapping views they share are quite numerous. Or maybe they're all just independent journalists and they're on the ground doing research?

I cited the Washington Examiner the other day to debunk a totally made-up Pelosi quote, after someone got mad at me for citing Snopes. That was fun.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nancy-pelosi-wall-violate-rights/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/fact-check-did-pelosi-claim-that-building-a-wall-will-violate-the-rights-of-millions-of-illegals

I get a lot of my news through NPR. I’m glad to see it’s on the middle of the list. Also into podcasts like Hacks on Tap and The Politics Guys. Both of those podcasts have a left of center and right of center host, who interpret current events through their own lenses.

NPR, PBS, and C-SPAN have gotta keep their reporting basic, non-sensational, and right down the middle, or they would jeopardize their public funding.

I'm always reminded of the C-SPAN segments where the host takes calls (one line each for liberals, moderates, and conservatives), and listens with a pained expression as some racist honkey-ass inevitably calls in to whine about Obama's birth certificate or something.

You do realize Snopes is bias. I can understand why someone would get mad after hearing all the political lies and censorship Snopes spread.

Would you care to share? No you probably wouldn’t nurturing doubt it’s all the conservatives have.

You trust what you want to hear

I’m not hearing anything from you.

Well what do you want me to say? I'm not gonna talk if there is nothing to respond to.

Lol. Yeah, when conservatives start to whine about my sources, I always turn around and ask them where they get their news, and they fall silent every time. Even they know their own sources are biased.

Heck, I even have a preference for citing right-leaning sources like the Hill, the New York Post and even Fox News when it backs up my point for that reason, but they still don't really listen.

hmmmm... I'm right here you know and I most certainly do neither of these things.

Small caveat: There are a handful of sources that can pretty much be crumpled up and tossed aside, but they are readily identifiable.

The farther you get toward the edges of this chart, the more likely you are to encounter a source so detached from reality that it’s probably not worth your time.

Stick to the middle, and you should be good. But these are the very sources most often attacked and dismissed by fringe conservatives as being part of the “mainstream, liberal media.”

Example: I had someone instantly dismiss a citation to the New York Times, perhaps not realizing the organization won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking the Weinstein story.

The initial Oct. 5, 2017 NYT story, which was backed up by numerous articles thereafter:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.amp.html

The Pulitzer Prize announcement:

https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/new-york-times-reporting-led-jodi-kantor-and-megan-twohey-and-new-yorker-reporting-ronan

(Of note, The New Yorker was a co-recipient of the Prize for the work done by Ronan Farrow.)

Weinstein was finally criminally convicted in March 2020:

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/11/814051801/harvey-weinstein-sentenced-to-23-years-in-prison

Holding a member of the Hollywood elite and big Democratic donor to account for decades of sexual assault, because the information was the truth?

All in a day’s work for the mainstream, liberal press.

Breitbart or whoever wouldn’t be capable of this kind of work.

I should like to look that good!