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
--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW:
http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
- Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.