What fallacies are in this? False dilemma? hasty generalization? Nirvana syndrome?

  Anyone believing any "news source" is misplacing trust. From my experience, today's news outlets and journalists are a sham, and unless anything they report is confirmed personally, they should be viewed with skepticism, regardless which way the "lean".

The provided statement contains several logical fallacies and issues related to faulty reasoning:

1. **Hasty Generalization**:
- The statement uses the personal experience of the speaker to make a broad generalization about all news outlets and journalists, implying they are all a sham. This generalization is made without sufficient evidence to support such a sweeping claim.

2. **False Dilemma**:
- The statement presents a false dichotomy that suggests one must either personally confirm all news reports or be skeptical of them all. It fails to recognize the possibility of a middle ground where news sources might often be reliable even if occasional errors occur, and where critical thinking and cross-referencing multiple sources could be a viable approach.

3. **Nirvana Fallacy** (also known as the Perfect Solution Fallacy):
- By suggesting that unless everything reported by news outlets is personally confirmed, it implies that anything less than perfect, personally verified information is worthless. This fallacy dismisses the potential value or relative reliability of the news sources simply because they are not infallible or perfect.

In addressing these fallacies, it is important to recognize that while skepticism and critical thinking are valuable, completely dismissing all news sources based on personal anecdotal evidence and unrealistic standards sets up an impractical and overly cynical view of the media landscape. A more balanced approach would involve evaluating information critically, cross-referencing multiple reputable sources, and understanding the nuances rather than adopting an all-or-nothing stance.