posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 01:59 PM
Yes and no.
Here's the way I see it: the source is important to the extent that there is a question of outright fabrication of facts, details, or even the entire
Short of that, I can hang with non-mainstream sources when it comes to non-mainstream sources. Afterall, if I has hanging out near the Marine base at
29 Palms, and saw something strange in the sky, then had Department of Homeland Security show up at my house and grill me over it, and posted the
whole story here: well I know it happened, but to a lot of people, ATS isn't a reliable source! Ooops.
What concerns me about India Daily is that it that their stories tend to contain no verifiable facts, and that statements made "on the background"
are not handled with proper journalistic professionalism. For instance, they will not tell you "A physicist educated at XYZ University who declined
to be named said..." they'll just say "scientists say". This makes the development of the story by the reader's outside searching or knowledge
impossible. I can't say for sure that they outright fabricate their sources, but the little alarm in my head does chirp a bit.
For this reason, I always like "unreliable sources" better when they sound VERY REMOTELY similiar to the sanitized news in mainstream sources, or if
they seem relevant to some kind of denial campaign that I can see in action, or if they explain a verifiable event, etc etc. I need one point of
contact with reality at all times- I don't think that's asking much.