Matt Brown wrote:
E.g. absolute and utter hogwash is regularly published in newspapers. Even, though less frequently perhaps, in world-renowned newspapers. Yet, by some versions of Reliable Sources, newspapers are automatically in the reliable category.
In many cases, the issue is further complicated by the question of exactly _how_ a source is used.
Consider a claim: "X is Y"
1. "X is Y"<1> --- that is, we assert the claim, using the authority of the cite as a reason, with the cite being to, for example, the New York Times. Usually this is fine if the claim is not really controversial.
2. "According to the New York Times, X is Y" --- we do not assert the claim, but rather assert something which is much less controversial, i.e. that the NYT said so, leaving the reader to judge it. This is much better when the claim is controversial.
3. "X is Y"<2> --- we assert the claim, only this time, the source is the Weekly World News (a tabloid of perhaps questionable authority). Very bad.
4. "According to the Weekly World News, X is Y" -- less bad, but probably still awful in most contexts
And the NYT and Weekly World News are both more or less easy cases. The difficult cases are partisan publications writing "factually" about political events, and things of that nature.
--Jimbo