>>regardless of these sources, there seems a tendency here that people are rejecting the sources as credible if they say anyting they refuse to beleive, and are in a counter argument throwing in other non-credible sources. So if you refuse to want to believe those resource, I guess you'll have to do your own research in a manner that is unbiased. But again, if your trying to find resources saying the opposite, you'll find them, but that does not make it unbiased.
>
>Unbiased sources are extremely rare outside of pure scientific data. This seems to be magnified in regards to internet links. It is perfectly reasonable to question the source of a study, article or editorial if the funding, site ownership or editors are known advocates for a certain position. This doesn't mean the positions are incorrect, just that more sources will be needed to make the argument.
>
>If I make a point and cite links from DailyKos, HuffingtonPost and MediaMatters I would hope that it would be questioned just as fast as if I backed up a point with Townhall, RushLimbaugh and Hannity.

100% agree. Even the name of a site can be misleading.
I wouldn't use the internet as "proof" for very much at all. Not even (the esteemed?) WikiPedia.
And I don't hesitate to question anyone who cites something that, when *I* read it, sounds biased.