No. of Recommendations: 8
With respect, there are a number of posters who do exactly that - throw out a link to a "respected" source and that's the be-all, end-all of their argument. Further, these same posters immediately *dismiss* any link that is not from a "respected" (Read: left wing media or similar) in an attempt to Poison the Well.
Again, I think that's overstating how these things are used.
Different sources have different degrees of credibility or support for the matter being asserted. Take my assertion claim. Linking to the BLS' official figures on inflation, for example, is a more credible source for claims about the inflation rate than linking to some columnist writing about how they can't remember the last time inflation rose so fast. The former isn't absolute unshakable conclusive truth about inflation rates....but it's much much better than the latter in supporting the point being asserted. That doesn't mean it can't be argued with; it just means that one party is presenting much more credible evidence than the other.
The Poisoning the Well fallacy doesn't mean exactly what you are using it for. Poisoning the Well is a fallacy if the negative things being asserted about a source are untrue or unrelated to their assertions; it's not a fallacy if the statements are true and related to the credibility of the assertions. Thus, for example, if someone is linking to a sports analyst to support their prediction that the Dolphins will make the playoffs, it's not Poisoning the Well to point out that said sports analyst has a poor track record in predicting playoff contenders.
Highly partisan news reporting sources (whether on the right or the left) do not have the same economic incentives to "stress test" their assertions than other sources. They have goals other than trying to find some platonic objective truth (or come as close as this imperfect world will allow). To use an analogy from a non-political field, a reporter from the National Artichoke Producers' trade publication Artichokes Today might run a quote from a random scientist saying that artichokes can help prevent halitosis. But because the purpose of that publication is to promote artichokes, it is far less likely that the reporter has done much background-checking to see whether the scientists' credentials qualify him to speak on that topic, has sought out any other scientists to support or refute that claim, or even asked a follow-up question asking what the scientist did to test that conclusion. Whereas a more neutral publication - say, a nationally circulated scientific journal, would be expected to do more of that stress-testing.
Which, again, is why links are important - because they allow people to assess the credibility and biases of the sources and evaluate them.
