This was an opinion piece, not really hard news, and it begs the question as it were by assuming that some news sources are "accurate" and other are not. I th

This was an opinion piece, not really hard news, and it begs the question as it were by assuming that some news sources are "accurate" and other are not. I think that a more easily verified test of quality -- or perhaps worthiness of my attention, anyway -- is this: Does a purported news organization have a journalistic code of ethics (don't pay sources, &c.), a history of enforcing that code, and an easy-to-find corrections page on the Web? I want my media diet coming from those sources that admit error, publish corrections, and hold their reporters accountable to a standard. And from those that do appear to do these things, I can make selections that seem to support an empirical approach to the truth and an abhorrence of patent nonsense. (Do they have a science denier on their op-ed page, like the NYT? Do they sponsor events featuring Deepak Chopra, like the Atlantic? No thanks.) It is also amusing that NPR is not behind a paywall.