Evaluating Sources

Not all sources are equal. A well-sourced story is built on a hierarchy of evidence:

Primary sources — Direct evidence. Official documents, court filings, data sets, transcripts, the event itself.

Named sources — People willing to attach their name to a claim. A named source is putting their reputation on the line, which makes their statements more credible (though not automatically true).

Anonymous sources — People who provide information on condition they aren't identified. Essential for some reporting (whistleblowers, national security), but inherently less verifiable. Good journalists explain why a source is anonymous ("who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter").

Secondary sources — Other news reports, analysis, commentary. These add context but are only as good as the primary sources underneath them.

When evaluating any claim, ask: How close is this source to the actual event? A diplomat who was in the room is more reliable than an analyst speculating from outside.

Institutional Credibility

Some organizations have earned trust through decades of rigorous reporting, transparent corrections, and editorial standards. Others have not.

Markers of institutional credibility:

• Corrections policy — Do they publish corrections prominently when they get things wrong?
• Editorial separation — Is news reporting kept separate from opinion?
• Source transparency — Do they explain where their information comes from?
• Track record — Have they broken major stories that held up over time?
• Accountability structure — Do they have editors, fact-checkers, legal review?

Organizations like the Associated Press, Reuters, and the BBC consistently score high on credibility indexes not because they're perfect, but because they have systems to catch and correct errors.

Be cautious of outlets that:

• Never issue corrections
• Mix news and opinion without clear labels
• Rely heavily on anonymous sources without explanation
• Have no identifiable editorial leadership