1. It is McCarthyish.

2. It's not the problem you think it is.

Plus I love the Daily Mail it has pictures!

You can always follow one of those pictures to something interesting. I don't know what the supposed problem with the Daily Mail is anyway. It has some tabloid content, but most news sites have something like that. Nothing wrong with a little fun, as much as some people like to convince us otherwise.

They're like the conservative counterpoint to the Guardian, which leans left.

Most publications have a point of view--some show it more than others. And some websites--like the Weekly Standard or the Daily Caller or that Breitbart outlet--revel in their bias. "They're soaking in it!!!" to quote Madge!

So long as the bias is acknowledged I can deal with it--if, though, say The Washington Times is telling all of us what a fine man Jeb Bush is, I'm gonna call pure horseshit on that!

Butthurt < Accuracy.

That's what I was expecting to find in the o.p. when I clicked on it.

If I see something interesting at a source I don"t consider credible, I go look for it at a credible source.

Lots of accurate things are posted at non-credible sources. But what makes them non-credible is that they also post lots of inaccurate stuff. Without other sources, how do you know which you're looking at?

If you can only find the latest anti-Hillary screed at a right-wing owned site, isn't it better to wait until a mainstream source picks it up rather than blow your cover?

Oh, btw, the same source that reported Bill Clinton at Epstein's orgy island (you know, the one some here were cheering over) is now implicating Tipper (yes, Tipper!) and Al Gore.

Since when does "respectability" (however it is being defined here because I'm not sure) have anything to do with whether something is true or not? It's true or it isn't.

When a story is sourced from a site, paper or network known for their hearsay and slander, one cannot possibly make the case the story is true unless it's also mirrored at a more respectable source. And if that respectable source exists, why not just use that?

No, except for a few innocent mistakes, people who post 'news' from right wing sources are doing it to spread their own viewpoints and sway opinions. in those cases, 'truth' isn't the goal.

The truth is in what's not being said most of the time.

understanding. Who ever mentioned either of those two sources being accurate? Not I.

SO FAR one source is reporting this. Should I post the link? Accurate is accurate.

sources and accuracy. But okay.

Should it be posted on DU? Yes or no?

There's one inaccuracy...should we go for two?

And answer the question.

I don't care if the post comes from a toddler or a prison inmate. As long as the information is valid, that is all I care about.

As so many here have already stated, critical thinking and common sense are what is required. How is this a topic past the age of 18?

Once can reasonably be expected to have enough ability to discern and judge by the time of adulthood to decipher what is to him or her, a valid point, without having to ask someone else first.

Posts from right wing sources seldom, if ever, give valid information and are a de facto violation of DU's TOS.

This is how mass brainwashing happens. It is a tactic used by the right and it is an attempt to control others; it has nothing whatsoever to do with a search for truth.

If the admins of DU say that DU is a safe haven from right wing propaganda then some here post such garbage under the guise of seeking 'truth' (when, in reality, they're just looking for ways to score political points), they are in violation of the TOS.

Interesting, though, you're defending the use of right wing sources known for brainwashing because to discredit them would be brainwashing.

You know like Huffington Post. Oh wait, President Obama told us not to go there. So that site is off the list right?

CNN has reported information that is not welcomed here, so they're off the list. What does that leave? I'm assuming you have a blog or two written by family members that is acceptable.

Better yet, since you're on the book burning and authorized site high horse, you should consider joining a different group.

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable here. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/should-christian-parents-ban-books

They believe we have a duty to ban books and stuff. So perhaps you would find kindred spirits there that agree with you.

1. Fox News

2. The Rush Limbaugh Show

3. Glenn Beck
4. Savage Nation w/ Michael Savage

5. Alex Jones’ Info Wars...

more.

http://thebigslice2013.org/the-50-worst-places-to-get-your-news-and-information/

to those with critical thinking skills. If what is quoted/linked makes sense, then it will bear analysis. If it doesn't make sense, it won't.

That applies to every source, even the "credible" ones like the New York Times.

we're thinking people, aren't we?

is "right."

I choose to not completely discount any source because of the source. I can discern truth from fiction better by not dismissing sources.

You know god damn well I never stole a car or said I stole a car, so why lie about me?

I think I know why...

Feel free to call on people not to use sources you don't like. Don't title your OP "Why using non credible sources is a mistake" and then never explain why it's a mistake.

Wasn't it several days before 'reputable' sources carried the story? The story was accurate during those days, whether or not the Enquirer is 'reputable'.

Truth is truth no matter who speaks it, likewise with falsehoods. Credibility is utterly subjective, based on the willingness of the audience to believe that the source is telling the truth.

Many sources that a typical person would consider highly credible have track records of intentional deception, some quite lengthy. And every source no matter how much integrity they have will make unintentional errors from time to time.

The credibility of a source can be a useful tool in analyzing the veracity of information, but it is not in and of itself a useful guide to determining whether a particular claim is true or false.

A well-known example would be the National Enquirer and the John Edwards infidelity scandal. If you dismissed the story out of hand based on the source, you missed out on a story of significant national impact.

don't waste my time with its bullshit.

example, and their cheer leading for Bush and the Iraq war.

And the N.Y. Times is about as mainstream as they come.

why is it a mistake?

Nah

There's already plenty of suppression of facts from disfavored sources, but it's usually expressed in less candid terms.