I followed the link you provided, and, right at the top, are links as "reference" to known liberal propaganda media sites.

I use such resources all the time. Using a resource is not about "here is the truth," it's about "here's what this source has to say." These sources hang themselves all the time. Using the words of Guardian or BBC or whoever to show what these propaganda machines have to say about something can be the biggest redpill of them all.

In this particular case these "sources" you think he is misusing are Q posts. Q posted these links that you just dismissed out of hand.

The search for truth doesn't end at a source that says things you think are likely true, nor does it discount "propaganda" sources out of hand. An analyst analyzes.

You are welcome to say "I don't like that source". You are welcome to not engage in a conversation about a source because "its not worth your time." (By welcome I mean, it doesn't make you a bad researcher to do those actions; obviously I'm not telling you your rights.) But if you do those things, recognize what you are doing. You are not discounting their arguments in any way by dismissing them, you are simply choosing not to engage. Attempting to dismiss a source (in the context of a debate or search for truth) without addressing the specifics of the argument is an ad hominem attack, regardless of the source of the argument.

Debate happens through addressing an argument. The search for truth only happens through debate. No one source gives "the truth", at best they can give really good evidence/analysis and an honest report. It is subsequent debate and further evidence that brings us closer to the truth. The search for the truth never ends. In such an endeavor the future is always open to new evidence and the debate that arises from it.