How much is enough?

As mentioned in my previous post, NewsTrust.net focuses on evaluating the credibility of news articles. After reading a posted article, reviewers are asked a series of questions. The answers to these questions determine the rating that the article receives. One of the questions that NewsTrust asks the reviewers is if the article is well sourced.

Keeping this question in mind I wanted to take a look at some of the articles on the Web pages that I have been reviewing. Looking at the LA Times' article about Clinton's trip to China the reporter used two outside sources in addition to quotes from Clinton's press appearances. For this article are three sources enough? The point of the article is reached, the reader is able to gather information from the article, but should the reporter have gone further?

It is hard to say exactly how many sources are needed in order to produce a well developed article. In some cases, a blog post for example, additional sources may hinder the main point of the piece. As a rule, journalists are taught to be unbiased and present information from multiple viewpoints. Yet, bloggers are not held to the same set of standards.

Jack & Jill Politics for example, features only one viewpoint in a majority of their posts. Does this make the information presented any less credible?

In this case I feel that it is a matter of expectation. When coming to a blog, one expects a somewhat skewed or limited viewpoint. On the other hand, when a reader picks up a newspaper they expect to see multiple points of view presented in an unbiased format.