“If you don’t “weight” your sources, then you are not being very discriminating. Most people on Free Republic do pay attention to sources. Most of us don’t have time to click on all the links. I tend to skip news stories posted from generally unreliable sources.
Do you consider Al Jazeera reliable?”
Read my earlier post. I consider the source, conservative commentator Michelle Malkin and the “Hot Air” conservative site she founded to be very reliable, don’t you?
And that’s the problem here ... people have assumed and criticized without bothering to ascertain information.
If I had used the Hot Air link, where people would have to scroll around to find the story, would the story about the peace talks be any different? No.
I wonder how many who have criticized here, have bothered to criticize Malkin, since it is her Hot Air site that links directly to Al Jazeera?
Also, I find that this comment ... “If you don’t “weight” your sources, then you are not being very discriminating. Most people on Free Republic do pay attention to sources. Most of us don’t have time to click on all the links. I tend to skip news stories posted from generally unreliable sources” ... to be typical of the stuff I read when I debate liberals. They too are not interested in “sources” that are challenging and cause them to think beyond their belief systems. Thing is, the underlying psychology is the same.
We are not talking about “challenging” sources or those that cause us to change our belief system. When we talk about Al Jazeera we are not just talking about people with different biases or liberal agendas; e.g, WAPO, we are talking about people who make up things out of whole cloth. I do not have enough time to read material from dubious sources.
BTW: Were you notified of why your story was deleted from “Breaking News”? I thought the content certainly warranted the Breaking News post. I only call into question the cited source.