[AndyJackson]

The commentary on FactCheck is, at best, a secondary source

In no scholaraly work would an opinion stated in a newspaper be accepted as even a legitimate secondary source in evidence of any fact, especially an opinion stated as a rebutal to a primary source - a sworn statement by an eyewitness to the events. This is not scholarship; it is liberal journalism at its best [worst].

[syriacus]

Hmm... I guess FactCheck could be considered a tertiary source ...It's easy to imagine FactCheck being subtitled A Cyberspace-Almanac for Lazy Journalists

From University of Maryland Library

Primary Sources

Primary sources are original materials. They are from the time period involved and have not been filtered through interpretation.

• Diaries
• Interviews (legal proceedings, personal, telephone, e-mail)
• Letters
• Original Documents (i.e. birth certificate or a trial transcript)
• Patents
• Photographs
• Proceedings of Meetings, Conferences and Symposia.
• Survey Research (such as market surveys and public opinion polls)
• Works of Literature

Secondary Sources

Secondary sources are accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. They are interpretations and evaluations of primary sources. Secondary sources are not evidence, but rather commentary on and discussion of evidence.

• Biographies
• Commentaries
• Dissertations
• Indexes, Abstracts, Bibliographies (used to locate primary & secondary sources)
• Journal Articles
• Monographs

Tertiary Sources

Tertiary sources consist of information which is a distillation and collection of primary and secondary sources.

• Almanacs
• Encyclopedias
• Fact books

[syriacus]

This is not scholarship; it is liberal journalism at its best [worst].

It's ironic that liberal co-workers have derisively laughed at my gainfully employed husband and children when they have said they heard something on FoxNews.

FactCheck.org can be a real joke.