Yes.
Shame you haven't learnt that lesson too.
I've told this story on MN multiple times but I'll do it again now.
My lecturer at university made a point about this very well. His speciality was politics and propaganda. He also presented the module I did to BBC staff as part of their training programme. He was highly respected in his field.
He said that it wasn't just about sourcing. It was about balance in the media too. And not just sticking to listening to left wing OR right wing media. He made the point, and it's one of the few things that stuck in my mind very clearly from uni. I paraphrase here but this is vaguely what he said:
"You might think I'm a chain smoking, old fashioned, sexist white male who is right wing and only reads the Daily Mail. And you are all young, liberal and left wing. But be careful what you wish for in terms of censorship. Who censors the censors? Who decides what should be censored and what shouldn't be? Censorship is a very powerful and dangerous tool. If you shut down voices, you risk missing a very important issue to society. A democracy is built on the representation and sharing of multiple ideas and free speech. One day you might need the Daily Mail".
In the 90s he was writing books on how technology communication was changing and how this historically coincided with periods of great political instability and there was a period of 'wild west' where society struggled to cope because people wrote all sorts of unaccountable bullshit and passed it off as real. He was essentially saying that 'fake news' was a risk long before Trump came along and used the term.
He died not long after I left uni at a pretty young age. I do often wonder what he'd have made of the last few years.
My point here is that whilst you are busy lecturing others on MN on various threads about 'acceptable sources', you have also forgotten the issue of political bias (whilst also lecturing about that too).
It is useful and indeed healthy to listen to multiple views EVEN IF THEY HAVE BIAS and you are aware of this, because it helps you to think critically rather than accept blindly. It helps you to question what you are told and process it as having value as something which is valid or to help you to construct a better counter argument to the point.
There is also the issue, as so many left wing and liberal women, have found out in that sometimes you realise that your 'own side' is talking out of its arse or the 'other side' has a valid point about something.
This is true even when you know that the view you are hearing is a pile of tosh. It is good to learn where someone is coming from or why they believe x, y and z. You can't do this unless you actually take the time to listen to them. If you allow others to explain it for you, you end up with them creating falsehoods and filling in the dots for you but to their own interests. See the point about how JKRowling tweets multiple anti-trans comments that no one can ever quote or give a screenshot for.
When you restrict yourself to ONLY listening or valuing 'approved' sources you narrow your own mind.
The idiom about having one mouth but two ears and we should behave in proportion to this in life, by making sure we listen more than we speak definitely holds true.
There is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' sources. There is such a thing as sources understood and used wisely and carefully in multiple ways. You shouldn't just simply dismiss them because they ALL hold some sort of value and worth which you can use to help your understanding of a subject more fully.
And with that I shall get off my 'MN, this is how the media works, why it is important and how this isn't being properly taught in this country and is greatly misunderstood' soapbox.