This was a report from a single source. It was an established and reliable line of reporting. It was quoted from a senior Iraqi military officer in a position to know this information.
I'm reliable sources, I'll tell ya anything you want me to know.
I thought we were to discuss a referral which we believe contains substantial and credible information of potential impeachable offenses by the President of the United States.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.
The power of the Internet is also its limitation - it provides access to large amounts of information without providing guidance on how to sort out what is credible and what is not.
It is a documented fact. I read it in People magazine.
I'm trying to inform people, so I try to present them with accurate information.
Press critics worry that the rise of media polarization threatens the foundation of credible, common information that American politics needs to thrive.
If you really want the truth of anything, don't use Wikipedia.
An absence of credible information prevents citizens from participating in public decision-making, particularly on key issues of concern such as education, health, and governance.
I think if you use Twitter and social media as your main source of information you are an idiot, but I think most people who use it know better, so I kind of enjoy it.
Never use 'Politico' for a source for your story.
Authentic sources. Many authentic sources.
Wikipedia, eh? Must be accurate then.
