"NPR,a reliable source, that’s better than any show in Vegas. thefp.com - Npr editor how npr lost am..."

That editorial has been in the news quite a bit the past couple of days.

You should also read some of the numerous rebuttals and critiques of it, but I bet you won't because while they will educate you they will also make you feel uncomfortable.

You want comfort, not education. That is quite clear.

Besides, the point you (and the author of that editorial) don't get is that there is a difference between accuracy and bias. One can influence the other, but they are distinct traits. Of course all information sources have biases. No one thinks otherwise except the strawmen you create. However not all sources have a long history of accuracy.

So to make it clear for you, when a person is listening to NPR, they can rightly assume that the source is probably biased in their view. However they can also rightly assume that the information they are given is generally quite accurate. Not only accurate in a factual sense, but also accurate in a contextual sense as well. Not even the editorial link you provide disputes this.

When a person is reading zerohedge, they can rightly assume the source is biased in their view. Just like NPR. However, where NPR is different than zerohedge is accuracy. Given the long history of lies, distortions, and spin that zerohedge engages in, a zerohedge reader cannot have the same relative assurances of accuracy that an NPR listener can have.

So while I am quite sure that all of the nutty information sources that feed your comfort bubble try and tell you that NPR and Zerohedge are the same because they are both biased and occasionally get a story wrong, so they should have the same credibility. This is not true because it ignores the batting average on accuracy. One (NPR) is far more accurate in it's reporting simply because they have standards and procedures in place to increase their accuracy. Zerohedge does not have those policies and standards so they feed you lots of crap.

The National Enquirer (famous for bigfoot pictures, stories of Elvis still being alive working in a Michigan gas station, and people being probed by aliens) is famous for once credibly breaking the story of Gary Hart (a Democratic presidential candidate) having an affair. It was the one national news story they have ever gotten right and they beat all of the "real" news organizations to the story. So while they are biased (just like everyone else), they have gotten one real story right in 40+ years of publishing, so you think they have the same credibility as NPR. They don't. Their batting average is terrible.

And that is the thing. No one here wants these pages overwhelmed with links to National Enquirer stories about aliens kidnapping Buffett and anal probing him for information. They don't want these pages overwhelmed with links to National Enquirer stories of Elvis working at a Michigan gas station. They want posts that educate them.

I am trying to help you educate yourself on how to find more credible information sources. I am pretty sure I would be better off trying to teach a pig to sing because you want comfort and reading and understanding this gives you some uncomfortable information. So you will probably reply with some comment about Vegas shows that only you thinks is witty and continue to read nuttery in order to achieve that comfort.

If you are seeking comfort, why not eat a cookie instead of polluting the board with nutty trash?