Mohd - it depends on the context. Currently, if we take Covid-19, then there is a lack of substantiated and validated primary research findings - so there is currently no alternative. Some might argue that 'some' information is better than none. As long as the author correctly cites the used source - it is then up to the reader to decide if they feel hat the source is credible or not. Where the media are 'mis-trusted' is when they distort actual primary research findings to suit their 'agenda'. For instance, mis-information about vaccination outcomes etc.

According to me only peer reviewed journals or data assessed through research agencies should be cited.

However, something newspapers and media houses can help researchers with new recent quality data. Apart from politics, sports and entertainment (which are mainly related to trp); digital and print media also publish several important items such as daily weather report and natural calamity data which can be cited with confidence.

See some hints in this post: https://www.researchgate.net/post/how_to_cite_newspaper_report_in_a_research_article

Mohd - it depends on the context. Currently, if we take Covid-19, then there is a lack of substantiated and validated primary research findings - so there is currently no alternative. Some might argue that 'some' information is better than none. As long as the author correctly cites the used source - it is then up to the reader to decide if they feel hat the source is credible or not. Where the media are 'mis-trusted' is when they distort actual primary research findings to suit their 'agenda'. For instance, mis-information about vaccination outcomes etc.

In your academic writing, it may be appropriate for you to cite factual information from quality news media for your literature review. The theoretical foundation of your study, however, should be based on peer-reviewed scholarly work.

I would say its definitely a matter of context, and also, the general reliability of the source quoted, just like with any peer reviewed published article. Be sure to cite right and clearly state the source, and then it should be no less suitable than any other source.

You can always cite the source, but the trustworthiness of the source varies.

The real problem is the education of the reader and moral of how the information is used

@ Maria bachmaan: indeed.

The other problem is that, nowadays most news agencies are far away from the duties of their existence.

The content published or broadcasted by most of them is only focused on the majority of the viewers likes.

And in most cases readers or viewers have not able to cross check these material due to their busy life style and subsequently they believe whatever they read.

Thank you for your question. Such type of citations might be the norm, for example, in foreign affairs studies, or historical and political studies. We rarely use such kind of citations in the medical literature.

As long as the researcher feels it’s relevant and medis content is authentic, it can be quoted in the research context. If the media content is based on a secondary source then it is better to avoid it. After all, the credibility of the media matters and these days everything looks very suspect and biased. However, if you are a historical researcher and reading public opinion and social history, inevitably you may depend on media contents. So your problem under investigation decides the contextual use of media contents.

No. Unless you had a direct communication with that reporter.

There are examples for such materials in the style manuals so generally media and newspapers may be considered sources but this may depend on the subject area and journal requirements.

I conduct social science research about media influences and media patterns of content related to ownership, type, sources used, and so forth. I also do qualitative research in media history. In both quantitative and qualitative studies I will cite articles from popular media to justify the research topics/questions I'm investigating. Typically I will do this in an introduction to a quantitative study of media patterns. Doing so justifies investigating media patterns that have not been investigated and for which there is little existing literature or theory. For example, Marilyn Greenwald, a colleague at Ohio University, and I did some of the first studies of media coverage of gay and lesbian subjects and the use of gay and lesbian staff in coverage of their own communities. Most of the discussion had appeared in industry trade publications. Citing trade literature offered justification for examining newspaper and magazine coverage to measure popular media bias.

Frankly, I have found I am most interested in researching topics in journalism and mass communication that have not already become old chestnuts. Researching under-researched or ignored topics builds and modifies fields of study and theory.

My interest in under-researched was supported when a Master's student at the University of Texas came up to me in the hotel bar at a conference where I was presenting a research paper about some aspect of media bias toward gays and lesbians. He told me about his experience getting approval of a thesis proposal on media presentation of gay culture. His advisor wouldn't allow him to present his thesis proposal on this topic unless he could fine a refereed journal article if this area of research. He wanted to personally thank Professor Greenwald and me for having published a quantitative article related to the topic he was proposing, the article he used to get his thesis advisor's approval. I've mentioned this experience to literally hundreds of master's and doctoral students to justify staking out new areas of study.

No, at the highest level your references has to be first hand. It has to withstand the cross examination or litmus test legally speaking. No hear-say.