[knighthack]

And your position is fallacious, since you presume that the reputation of a source correlates to a greater likelihood of truth.

That's a classic fallacy: appeal to/argument from authority. It's especially problematic, since who/what one presumes to be 'reputable', other people may not agree with.

Moreover the opinion of a majority of 'reputable' sources, agreeing to something, does not make it true. Reportage and stories are to be considered chiefly on the basis of what is reported and the likelihood of it being true, and should not be so staked on the reputation of the person/entity reporting it.

[Krisjohn]

Independent sources of information with a reputation for accuracy and unbiased reporting generally agreeing on something is literally the best we have for being informed about something we did not personally witness. Refusing to accept consensus positions from good sources should be done VERY carefully and has a high risk of reaching conclusions that are wildly inaccurate. You'd need a very good reason to reject consensus - one that's based around the available facts, not just negative personal impact or discomfort.

Declaring, without an argument that is not circular, that a collection of respected sources are all wrong (or lying) and that the truth must be something different is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.