And your position is fallacious, since you presume that the reputation of a source correlates to a greater likelihood of truth.

That's a classic fallacy: appeal to/argument from authority. It's especially problematic, since who/what one presumes to be 'reputable', other people may not agree with.

Moreover the opinion of a majority of 'reputable' sources, agreeing to something, does not make it true. Reportage and stories are to be considered chiefly on the basis of what is reported and the likelihood of it being true, and should not be so staked on the reputation of the person/entity reporting it.