Jeff Raymond wrote:

Michael Snow wrote:

...

The reader can only supply judgment about the credibility of a source if there is some information upon which to exercise that judgment. The reason blogs get singled out as a category is not because they cannot ever be useful sources, but because so few of them provide the information a reader would need to decide how it stacks up against other sources. (I assume that the reader won't make the decision based on the fact that it's a blog, since as you rightly point out, that's only a label for the medium in general.)

But we can realistically say that about *any* source. I mean, do you really trust Reuters and their middle east coverage right now?

...

For example, the existence of independent sources is essential, both to maintain a neutral presentation and to avoid gullibly repeating falsehoods. But when you have a blog of unknown provenance, it's impossible to know whether it qualifies as independent (Wal-Mart Across America, anyone?).

Jayson Blair? Stephen Glass?

The only roadblock we have regarding blogs as sources is that some are more reputable than others, and filtering the wheat from the chaff is important. However, we do that with magazines, books, and journals already, so it can't be *that* difficult.

Jeff, you seem to have missed the point I was making. It's not a question of whether we trust Reuters or the New York Times. The Cunctator was making the understandable argument that we should tell people, "We got this from Reuters", or the New York Times or whatever the case may be, and let *them* decide whether to trust that particular source.

The roadblock with blogs is not simply that some have shoddy reputations. It's that so many basically have no reputation at all, and no way for the reader to figure out what their reputation should be. And no, you can't do that for an anonymous blog the same way you would for material from known authors and publishers.

--Michael Snow