> If you (not you personally) are arguing against a propagandist who says that all your sources are biased, then I don't know what is an effective rhetorical s

> If you (not you personally) are arguing against a propagandist who says that all your sources are biased, then I don't know what is an effective rhetorical strategy—it seems that no-one does, if there even is one—but I'm almost certain that asking for a citation for the claim of bias isn't it, since all it does is shift the question from "who is biased?" to "who can be trusted to judge bias?". I see your point, but I think the propagandist is only effective if we buy their premise, that there is no way to distinguish between biased and unbiased sources (and information). My point is that there are many ways to respond, that it's not at all a new problem, and that the solution is reason, in the Enlightenment sense. The propagandist says it's all arbitrary faith, but reason always has been their downfall (which is why propaganda often appeals to hatred, to crowd out the application of reason). (On one had, this comment and my GP comment are written so loosely and broadly that it's a bit embarrassing; on the other, I think my point gets across and I don't have time to write a treatise.)