I think salem was saying that it's okay to cite certain sources, but with the caveat understood by ALL WHO read that if it's not the "X,Y,Z" type of source, don't take it as fact without sleuthing of your own. I think it's impossible for every post to contain a vetting of every source, as we pull our memories from many sources to compose each and every sentence we type. if we cite things, the readers are welcome to look at the source and evaluate it for themselves. For example, in the political realm in the US, CNN is seen as a partisan joke for new political reporting. If you heard it from Rush Limbaugh, it's doubtful that progressives or democrats will give it much weight. There are people here who think you can't believe anything President Obama says, nor do they believe the Koran or the bible. So you can't please everyone with your source.
I don't think we can dismiss any source out of hand because they might prove some useful information. For example, that TJMK site, I think it's a joke personally, but I believe I wound up getting RG's italian MOT from there. Which brings me to my next point. The majority of our debates are rooted in information that has been translated to us by reporters, bloggers, and well-meaning sleuthers from other websites. So it's almost impossible to say that we even have the correct information or translation of something. I am very grateful that these people made the effort, but I have also heard that the PMF's verision of the MOT report contains some meaningful errors.
I'm not sure what you do in a case like ours, where EVEN THE POLICE leaked false information to the media, where even the forensic investigator withheld and then discounted her own findings (as to bloody footprints). So I think we can just do the best we can, judge sources for ourselves, but it's pointless to debate the sources. Esp since, as I've said, this case has bloggers who have more facts on it than the media.
....