Or, if you don't really think at all. If you simply read the articles at religionnews.com as though they were factual and unbiased, then you'll very likely think the site is something like a news site. It's sort of like the Fox News Channel. If you watch that without considering that it might not be 100% factual, then you might mistake it for news. If you only watched FNC, you might have a distorted picture of the world, of politics, and of a lot of other things.
If, however, you read something on religionnews.com and wondered, "I wonder what the source of that quotation about the ACLU and religious groups was..." Then, if you copied that quote and pasted it into Google with quotation marks around it, you might see the same sources I saw, which immediately dated the quote to 1995. Then, you might wonder if what the quote said was still valid, and who exactly was involved with that joint statement. Then, you'd understand that the author of the article deliberately left off the date and the other participants, because it made the quote less useful to the point being made.
If you were even more curious, you'd notice that the quote has been used again and again by right-wingers to "show" that even the ACLU is in favor of the Bible being taught in schools.
If, instead, you had a habit of accepting everything published on religionnews.com as "gospel" truth, you wouldn't do those things. Then, when someone else did and pointed out the date and other information, you'd abandon your thread and go in some other direction.
Bottom line is: religionnews.com is a biased source of articles that have a point to make that might not be 100% supportable. It doesn't qualify as a news site, despite the use of that word in its URL.
Me? I check things like that. But, I'm just an atheist, so what do I know?
= new reply since forum marked as read