. . . accuracy was an imperative to him.

When an article adopts one position only (not talking about editorials), and wants to 'sell' that position, it's a danger sign to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

. . . although many stories just include a contrary view for the appearance of balance. See: FOX.

Much as an article "selling" evolution and not allowing Creationism equal time is a danger sign?

Absent verifiable facts, a good journalist at the very least poses alternate questions to be considered. Anything less is a sales job designed to make up my mind for me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

It's meaningless.

Not to a partisan blog that has a link to another blog that has a link to an excerpt in an article that links to the original article.

knowing that NONE is doing that, well you will have to take my quotes (and links to the governments documents)

Generally speaking, you should try to verify with two other sources when possible, which is almost impossible in breaking news situations.

The other thing you should look for is a reporter that is honest and tells you when they are doing an editorial, or straight reporting. The problem is that many of the talking heads mix the two forms any longer.

I'm American.

As you said, a report from more than one source is more credible. But even BBC reporting is wrong at times and other sources ought to be considered.

The BBC is transparent enough with its reporting. You can read their editorial guidelines online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines .

I don't think I can find anything like this for Fox News Channel - my Google search for "Fox News editorial guidelines" brings up a DU discussion thread as the #3 result. Searching for other news outlets guidelines yield better results.

So if the news report comes from an organization that follows something like the BBC's guidelines then I will consider it more credible on its own versus other sources. However with reports from many sources, even sources I consider untrustworthy can be credible. The track record of an organization is what matters most IMO. This is why I consider Sky News (UK) to be more credible than Fox News (US) as the former has a better track record - even though both are heavily influenced by Murdoch.

for what we do.

Now that is a model I would not mind following.

I know there are times when opinion is very important (Cronkite reporting on Vietnam for example), but cable news (and even broadcast news) have totally lost it regarding actual reporting.