And what is the difference between that and the anti-establishment anti-science individuals here using their quack web sources to support their views?
You are criticizing the use of Media Bias/Fact Check, but you do not criticize people posting dubious articles from non-authoritative sources to back up their particular arguments. So your criticisms seem rather inconsistent and partisan.
If you don't like appeals to authority, don't get involved in science,
Of course we all rely on opinions expressed by others to help form our own opinion. None of us here are generating our own data. The problems come from the steps between the actual data and the formation of an opinion.
Scenario:
Source 1 says ‘A’.
Source 2 says ‘Not A”
Longecity commenter 1 says “I believe ‘Not A’ because Source 2 said so, and Source 2 is more reliable than Source 1. And the reason I know Source 2 is more reliable than Source 1 is because Source 3 agrees with me.
Longecity commenter 2 says “I believe ‘A’ because ‘A’ fits with scientific principles and facts that I am aware of and Source 1 gave references and data to support A.
Commenter 1 committed the genetic fallacy and supported it by an appeal to authority. (sound familiar?).
Commenter 2 might be wrong about ‘A’ and the evidence to support ‘A’, but at least we all have something to work with and think about. Now do you see the difference?