It also conflates junk “sites” with junk “stories.” A true story is true even if it is told by a habitual liar, and it is a form of ad-hominem itself to disqualify a true story because you don’t like the person who’s telling it.
I think they’re trying to get at the idea of reputable media outlets. Most media outlets are far from perfect (e.g the NYT re: Iraq in 2003) but there’s a difference between those that genuinely try for the qualities in question and those that don’t. Know-Nothings can’t or won’t make those distinctions, requiring as they do things like critical thinking, education, a knowledge of history, scepticism about authority, etc.
