Looking for a credible source of news.

What makes a good news source? For me, it consists of the following

Non editorializing

         Thank you very much I'll form my own opinion. The source of the news has to be non biased as well. Do you think a security researcher that found an issue and makes profit (both intellectual and monetary) from being the first to find an "issue" is the most accurate person to ask? No, they want to make the issue as severe as possible, to gain the most press. You don't ask a hero to tell you why he's a hero, you ask the impartial eyewitness.

Professional

         This kind of relates to the editorializing subject above, calling a company the "Vole", "M$FT", "Evil Empire", posting pictures of "Billgatus of Borg" lessens your credibility (if you had any to begin with)

Accurate

         Tell me what you know, keep the speculation somewhere else

Non hype

         Sorry, not all stories can be Watergate. Any not all journalists can be Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein. Not all sources are Mark Felt. Sorry, once in a lifetime stories are just that. I also like stories that start off with "50% of students are below average", um Ok;), you know what statistics are.

Not Fear Mongering

         This consists mostly of stories that have headlines that start with a question, and answer the question negatively such as:

            Will the world end tomorrow?

            Does ____ need a clue?

            Are ____ on track?

I hate stories like this, it’s the journalistic equivalent of bait and switch

The only problem here is that a successful journalist isn't always a good journalist. Writing the facts without fear mongering, exaggerating and editorializing doesn’t draw traffic or readers. Most people like to hear people that agree with them. The rise of sensationalized, biased news has become a very successful business and has make Ted Turner and Rupert Murdock very rich men. Who can blame them, they gave the masses what they wanted and they were rewarded for it. What I can blame them for is claiming not to be biased and sensationalized when they clearly are. If you are upfront with your bias ala "The Daily Show" or a blogger, at least you can apply a correction to determine what the true story probably is.

The moral of the story? I pay more attention to enthusiast/nonenthusiast sites and bloggers than commercial news stories when I want to see how the community reacts to our movements.