You all still seem to miss the main thrust of my argument that often the facts can be checked, irregardless of origin. Obviously the source quoted has an agenda, like the BBC, Guardian, Times.Independant, Daily wail, whatever. There is no such thing as a neutral news source, often vital news is totally omitted because it would involve a departure from their script. The conclusions drawn, or interpretation of the facts is obviously governed by the source. If you cannot work that one out perhaps you should not be here. Dismissing various sources because they do not share your particular political stance is condemning yourself to
willful ignorance because all sources are selective in what they will report. You may not like guido or al jazeera but they often contain information not seen elswhere.
To say any one source is disreputable merely displays your own ignorance. All sources are disreputable in one way or another, even if it is merely the political slant of their analysis.
Clever little putdowns about sources say much more about the person posting than the source being denigrated.
Guido does not permanently beg for money like the gruniard. That says a lot!