>Tell me why you don't believe that specific source and give me something more than just cynicism and doubt, show me something that has the same rigor from what

>Tell me why you don't believe that specific source and give me something more than just cynicism and doubt, show me something that has the same rigor from whatever you're trying to justify. This is completely upside down. Necessary skepticism (not cynicism) should always be your default mindset, not blind trust. If a specific source makes a claim then the burden of proof is on that source to provide evidence for their assertion. It is in many ways analogous to science or mathematics. You should never simply believe an assertion that comes without the underlying data or proof that supports that assertion. Unfortunately legacy media (most newspapers, all corporate owned networks) have devolved into a toxic soup made up of opinions and evidence-free assertions from unnamed sources (assertions which often turn out later to be false). Well-sourced, well-written, fact-based journalism is practically non-existent. The critical role of the 4th estate is to be a watchdog over the government and other loci of power. Instead the 4th estate has been subsumed by the powerful, and effectively acts as another propaganda arm of the political parties and various powerful corporate interests.