Cite your sources.There’s a good reason professors make you do this, and, as pointless as it might seem at first, there’s a good reason why your sources are one of the most critical aspects of your paper.Any good argumentative writer’s first and greatest rule is to ensure accuracy. When facts are recent events, it is absolutely essential the news come from a credible source.Using credible sources ensures the information you are presenting is true – the events it describes actually happened, the numbers it cites were scientifically obtained and the quotes it uses were actually said.Good information is the fundamental basis of any good argument, whether it’s an academic paper, a published column or a debate.With the advent of the Internet, the question of what constitutes a good source is far more difficult to answer than it has ever been.The recent phenomenon of the “news aggregation site,” is making this line especially hard to define.A news aggregation site consists of hyperlinks to other sources. It is essentially a way for those scouring the net for news to easily find the most important headlines, and, for a reader on the go, a way of rapidly assimilating the headlines.News aggregation sites are like SparkNotes: They can serve a useful purpose but should never be used as a primary source of information.Ever.The most popular example of news aggregation sites is Drudge Report. Matt Drudge, who created and runs the site, has become through his creation one of the most influential modern conservatives. The site has approximately 3 million unique viewers, according to Nielson.When analyzing how useful Drudge Report is, the SparkNotes analogy is especially appropriate. The Web site is useful as a way of gathering initial information, a way to filter through the almost limitless information available to find the most important news.And like SparkNotes, it’s important that its usefulness not be overestimated.If Drudge Report is to be used as a filter, it’s essential the obvious biases it favors be recognized. Nowhere was this more evident than during this past presidential campaign, where the Report routinely blasted Obama with its headlines, linking to the most incendiary of articles. The Web site started the trend of calling Obama unpatriotic by repeatedly hammering him for not wearing a flag lapel. It also notoriously claimed that Obama did not pledge allegiance to the flag — using a photo of questionable authenticity showing him with his hands clasped surrounded by other candidates with their hands on their breast.The patent falsehood of this story leads to the second, and most important reason Drudge is not a legitimate news source on its own. It’s information has often been proven patently false.Among other things, the site has posted stories claiming a White House aide had beaten his wife, John Kerry’s campaign was about to collapse due to an intern scandal, and Bill Clinton had sired an illegitimate child.Every one of these serious and damaging accusations was disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt.Drudge Report cannot be considered a legitimate source of news because it does not hold itself to the high standards of reliability legitimate sources do.There’s nothing wrong with looking at sites such as Drudge Report. There is, however, very much wrong with relying too heavily on it. Anyone with any interest in the truth should look for plenty of additional sources and should absolutely never cite Drudge as a source itself.——Contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]