[ilaksh]

Why would an archaeologist be more qualified to guess how they built the pyramids than an engineer who studied the pyramids for years?

Or are you saying we should just dismiss all of the content because you don't like the organization that published it?

I question your belief that you can evaluate information based on the organization that provides it. Or at least that some popular or well-respected organization can be trusted to provide good information. In fact, oftentimes the most widely trusted organizations have the most invested in maintaining the status quo, which makes facts subservient to that core need to sustain the venerable order of things.

[DanBC]

Do you treat all P=NP proofs as of equal worth and spend time carefully checking them to see if they might be accurate? Or do you apply some filtering first - reputable journal etc?

Discounting stories in the Mirror and Mail is a totally reasonable tactic.

UK papers do not have fact checkers like US publications. UK papers very carefully report what someone says, even if most people agree that person is a wingnut and talking nonsense.

Looking at the UK tabloid newspapers we see some deeply nasty methods where blatant lies are told and nonsense peddled.

If the Daily Mail told me that grass is green I'd have to go out and check.

[ilaksh]

Sure tabloids are an extreme case and they do often print lies and garbage. Still, since you bring scientific journals into it, the scientific publication system has been shown to stifle new scientific theories that correct old ones in favor of maintaining the status quo or most popular theories of the time. So journal reputation can also be a negative qualifier.

Centralized, authority-driven worldviews are very destructive and outdated.