What does it mean to be a "Credible" Source?
The logical fallacy for those who don't have time.
I write this because a friend of mine had criticized me for not using a credible source when making a claim about the quality of the current presidency. While I found that rebuttal to be humorous, it disingenuously lacked substance. He understandably looks for and relies on credible sources because he can’t or won’t look into the factual basis of the stories and narrative. I even fall prey to this inability and fallacy on occasion.
Throughout school, educators instruct students to cite “credible” sources for projects. This tactic suits scientific and historical topics because it sifts through a lot of false information. Only watching the late-night programming on the History Channel would make someone hilariously misinformed. However, the quality of being “credible” does not impart any truth to a source; instead, it quantifies the amount of trust in something to be correct based on prior work.
But this is where many people don’t understand the definition. For my friend, credibility is conferred based on acceptable political sources.
My friend made the claim: “Joe Biden wasn’t the president we wanted, but the interim president we needed to stabilize American politics after Trump.”
From his perspective, my friend is correct. He thinks the president is doing what he should be doing, isn’t being “incendiary”, and “credible” sources are not constantly writing articles condemning him. I simply wanted to challenge this perspective because it’s not necessarily right.
So I presented a video that challenged his statement:
The video is factually correct. Nothing in it is a lie, omission, or error. But that didn’t matter. My friend retorted, “At least attempt to use a credible source.”
This is where he got mixed up. The Daily Wire is a credible news source. They have the misfortune of being labeled “uncredible” because of their political leanings. I texted back asking for specific instances where the video was wrong; However, my friend elected to not answer the question. I assume that he was not interested in hearing facts that were used to justify a differing conclusion.
That’s one of the biggest problems today: despite having every resource to research and learn, people still rely on authority to give an assessment of facts.
This reliance keeps you dependent on your credible sources to maintain your worldview. Especially in a partisan climate like the united states, people instinctively clutch at anything to maintain their narrative. To even acknowledge that they are factually right is treasonous and subverts your political party’s integrity. It is a never-ending cycle: You can’t be wrong, so you ignore the other side. You validate your opinion by selecting what to listen to. The cycle continues.
Ironically, this appeal to authority caused the current division that my friend claimed Biden fixed. The reality is Biden didn’t fix anything, but my friend’s perception changed. This friend does not actually see the world as it is, but as shadows on the wall of Plato’s Cave. His interpretation of the shadows represents the limited perspective allowed by his worldview that chains him to the cave. One can interpret the facts in numerous ways, but the shadows do not entirely constitute reality. The dim, flickering fire casting a moving shadow along the cracked and metamorphic walls of the cave can not produce a clear picture.
To use the credibility argument is an actual logical fallacy. It can not constitute a substantive rebuttal. However, departing from your constructed narrative constitutes too traumatic of a change that is even worse. This leads people to disqualify information in this manner to remain in their cave. A conscientious person genuinely looking for truth would not use such a disingenuous tactic.
It actually saddens me that my friend wasn’t willing to engage on any of the points from the video. It is all too common for people to brush away stuff like this because it isn’t authoritative.
Just to throw some fuel onto the flames. Even the sources considered credible can be inadvertently wrong. It’s proven with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Stories like the Ghost of Kiev and Miss Ukraine joining the resistance show how credible sources can report obvious lies without much research. Both stories are patently false, and yet a US representative retweeted an obviously photoshopped image and Yahoo News mis-reported the story about Miss Ukraine posting pictures with an airsoft rifle.
People get it wrong. Even the best of our news outlets get it horribly wrong. Take CNN for example. They have screwed up so much in the last 6 years that their tagline seems to be satirical: “The most trusted name in news”. They are perhaps the least trusted name in news. And don’t get me started with how wrong authoritative news sources and pulic health officials have been during the COVID19 pandemic. They lost their crediblity near the beginning of the pandemic.
I’m sure my friend doesn’t mean to do any of this. He might not have time to examine claims that could remove stitches from his world narrative. I only hope that he doesn’t become prey to this for something that really matters.