We've all been there. We're talking to someone and they bring something up and we make a point in response to that, complete with a source. And the other person is like "eww why did you pick that source place?"

Sometimes this happens even when it's not a debate. I was talking to someone the other day about tips on taking care of your cat, and I said something and inserted source material from Yahoo. And I can almost see everyone absolutely running for their lives in response to that, and the person I was talking to pulled a Mike Wazowski and did the same.

However, it's much harder to ask "so what criteria is imbued exclusively in every source considered good" because people often retract their definition when a conforming one looks sus, plus that differs between sites. So I was wondering, how would you define a good source, or the difference as opposed to a not good one?

It's subjective, honestly. I think it comes down to which sources establish long-term negative patterns vs long-term reputable patterns.

yahoo isn't looked on kindly in general because they have a longstanding history with "clickbait," or other forms of skewing information just enough that it puts more ad revenue in their pockets, without crossing a line into something prosecutable by law. similarly websites like buzzfeed or the "tabloids" - it's not that none of them have ever written a factual article, but that it's often covered in the residue of money-making agendas that make it hard to trust or rely on as a primary news source.

I'd argue that journalism in general has been in decline for a while now specifically because of the need to get those almighty clicks, but there's still something to be said for patterns of good behavior. for "good news sources" as a concept - it's not like they haven't ever written cheap articles designed to get eyes and click-dollars, but broadly speaking, they stick to facts, garnish very little, and cite either research-based information or well-documented witnesses. I'd hold that none of the big media companies are squeaky clean, but something like NPR is just more likely to provide reliable information than yahoo.