I have a question for the Board concerning 'sources' and I was wondering if someone could help me.
I've been meaning to ask this question for a while. What brings it up today is a story that I was going to post that I saw on the Washington Times site. I saw the story and was thinking about starting a discussion but problem was when I looked for other sources, I could only back it up with Faux Snooze . I decided that since so many 'left' leaning posters on the places that I haunt throw a conniption if you use either of those sources, I would just bypass the whole thing. I have seen some people raked over the coals for doing just that, using 'sources' not sanctioned by the management. Hells bells, the place most of us got booted off of is a PERFECT example of what I mean.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT, the reason I am bringing this up is because this place isn't narrow minded or judgmental. People here operate on informed opinions and intellect and NOT petty, personal, or partisan viewpoints (for lack of a better term). So what are considered 'reliable' sources? Because I have even (albeit rarely) seen stuff on Breitbart that turned out to be true. What are our standards? I look for other sources but sometimes there isn't one. If it's breaking news or a 'scoop' other sources may not have it for a while. And then there's the 'stopped clock is still right twice a day' principal. Hence my confusion.
Thanks you for your response.