James Hare wrote:
Oh God don't get me started on that Wikiasari crap I've read about in da n00z.
Newspapers, while not the accuratest (and we all know how bad journalists can be) (this is coming from a journalist), are really the best thing available for current things since they're the very first authority on it. Once current events turn into events and there's books and such that probably took longer to write than the average news article, then we should wean from the newspaper and focus on the books.
Newspapers are what they are. I've written press releases that got printed verbatim in a local paper. And I've been present for newspaper interviews, and seen the resulting story that managed to mangle some very basic information based on the interview. After these sort of experiences, you come to understand how to treat information you read in a newspaper--grateful for the timeliness, but skeptical of the accuracy.
This is not meant to be a slam against newspapers. The nature of their business is reflected in the product.
But I don't buy the bit about a newspaper not being a "reliable source". There is no such thing as a 100% reliable source. Some newspapers will be more reliable on average than others. Monthly news magazines will be more reliable on average than newspapers. And peer-reviewed journals more reliable on average still.
Reliability is not a binary value.
What we need to do is provide references to the sources we use, and educate people on how to view those sources. It's the only way to get beyond the endless arguments over "reliable sources". And by the way, it doesn't treat our readers like they're dolts.
-Rich Holton