It needs to be discussed what sites contain credible facts and evidence for our debates on these boards.

Generally most big news sites(CNN,NBC,ABC,FOXNEWS) are valid news sites for references.

Although, I do not agree that so called sites with an agenda,whether Liberal or Conservative are credible sources as their information excludes facts that they find harmful to their cause. These sites such as: Salon.com(liberal), World News Daily(right wing)...

If you look through both of these sites all they do is bash the other side opposite to their views.

Sleeper

I concur. Though, someone can always find something about a news site to discredit it.

I think most Blogs shouldn't be considered as valid fact. These are just journals of opinionated people.

Tough to find factual news these days

I agree. Even mainstream news sources will often cite 'unnamed sources' - which is something I try to note while I am reading.

The errors are not only of commission, but also of omission.

So, ya do da best ya can.

Just to get in a different opinion here...

There is no doubt that some sources are more credible than others.

To permit only certain sources would certainly be too limiting to the debate.

The way I see it is this: It is up to each member to determine the credibility of each cited source. If the facts backing up a story are from a source of questionable repute, members should take it into consideration.

For me personally, the sources that someone uses has an effect on my perceived credibility of that person.

On the other hand, however, a jewel in the rough has been found at even the most slanted sites. Also, a slanted story is sometimes needed to point out the ridiculousness of an argument.

Mike

We are intelligent people, we should be able to go into less credible sights and our debate should reveal the weakness in articles or announcements that are not credible. Bring it all in. I can find out what is on CNN without coming here.

I agree with Eeyore, here. Any of us in a debate are going to find stories that are "worth-while" to our cause. (Al Gore: By "Debate", I mean, take the story and pick it apart.) Make me come back with another story... That's the whole fun of this. I also agree with DP and Basheva about the mainstream news networks. They're often a good way to find out about a story, but its usually reasonably safe to assume that there's more to the story.

I tend to agree. But I would argue that any news outlet owned by a large multi-national conglomerate cannot be trusted as far as its CEO can be thrown. I would recommend that any posting which refers to CNN, C-SPAN, MSNBC, ABC, or CBS be seriously questioned - and should be corroborated by at least one partisan online 'zine if allowed to stand. Any posting which cites a FOX NEWS story should be deleted outright.

Seriously, though: If I wanted the government line which is fed us by newtwork news, I'd watch network news and keep my blinders in place. I come here for a bit of diversity of opinion - from both sides. Once "facts" are referenced, I can guage the credibility of the source for myself. We are all more or less literate adults here, are we not? I go with Eeyore and Mike.