Facts are facts, and stand on their own merits.

Agreed.

Complaining about sources is logically fallacious, and you know that.

When those sources assert, for example, that HRC is running a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor, I think it is justified to complain. Especially when that pizza joint didn't have a basement. The problem you're overlooking is that the sources we are talking about aren't reporting facts. So there is no merit. So, yes, I complain about them.

It's a huge leap from "the FBI has Hunter's laptop" (fact) to "the FBI is covering-up for the Dem lying machine" (conjecture without any evidence).

The mainstream media is comprised of charlatans and fools, and putting their work on some kind of Truth Pedestal is something that we're never ever going to do.

That's opinion masquerading as fact. At least two sources have been cited on this thread that rate accuracy of various outlets, and they both yield similar results: the more partisan a source, the less accurate they are in general. I assume "mainstream" is the NYT, WashPo, NBC, ABC, etc? And they're all charlatans and fools? Where's your evidence. Your data. I have (courtesy of Dominion, among others) reams of data saying Fox is unreliable. Can you produce the same for NPR, for example? Probably not. NPR consistently rates as highly accurate, and roughly center in the bias scale. Of course, Fox has probably the largest audience on the planet, so they should probably be considered "mainstream" just based on audience share.

Adhering to a source because it tells you want you want to hear is engaging in confirmation bias. Both left and right do this, but -at this moment in history- it's more problematic on the right.