Are Blogs Authoritative?

As a college student, I've heard a lot of discussion about sources, what constitutes a reliable source, what constitutes a scholarly source, and what constitutes an authoritative source. "Consider the source" are the watchwords of any critical thinker when conducting research.

Now that I've set the stage ...

I was listening to this week's episode of This Week In Tech, Leo Laporte's podcast netcast about technology, and the subject of the Google buyout of YouTube came up. Unfortunately for Leo and his crew, they discussed it the day before the buyout took place. Apparently, the Wall Street Journal cited a blog as a source for the story, and the TWiT folks immediately jumped all over them for citing a blog. This was without any knowledge of any additional work the WSJ might have done in checking out the sources the blog might have used.

There are a bunch of issues here, and it's all a bit complex. That said, I think that the word "blog" needs more definition, as was suggested by the TWiTs. What exactly constitutes a blog? Fortress of Solitude is clearly a blog, as it is opinions of one person, but does that preclude me from running news? Does it make me less authoritative? Does the subject matter, since over a decade of experience as a video game industry journalist would make me an authoritative source on that subject? Planet GameCube was around in various incarnations before blogging was en vogue, but would they be considered a blog now, just because similar sites like Joystiq are called blogs? Is Joystiq even a blog anymore, now that they have a corporate parent?

As I said, this is complex stuff. What I want to take issue with is the attitude expressed by the TWiT folks, concerning blogs as sources. They immediately discredited not only the WSJ, but the blog cited simply on the basis that it was a blog, without any further research. The story turned out the be true, and next week's show should be interesting. But I've seen this anti-blog bias before ... Digg.com is rampant with prejudice against blogs simply because of the name. There is no consideration of the person(s) behind the blog at all, nor of the reliability of said blog. At the same time, posts from Joystiq and Engadget pass muster with them all the time, despite being self-confessed blogs. Again, all I can see is that corporate ownership seems to be a thread there.

I think it all stems from our loose definition of the term "blog", and the negative connotations blog sites like MySpace carry. Blogs are seen as less reliable and less authoritative simply by their nature. Seemingly, the lack of editorial oversight for blogs without a corporate parent and a somewhat muddled history of personal blogs with strong opinions (ones that tend to have little thought or research involved) carries a lot of weight. Or maybe it's just the sheer volume, and rather than deal with the signal-to-noise ratio, they've simply turned off that channel for information. Or maybe it's because of Google's AdSense, and the fact that people can make money on their opinions makes them less authoritative (again, a strange double-standard is applied for sites like Joystiq).

More examples of the confusion over the definition of a blog came quickly, as later in the same podcast netcast, TWiT talks about Sun wanting to post financial disclosures and other information required by the SEC in their corporate blog. Immediately, Leo jumped on this as an unsuitable avenue simply by it's nature, rather than considering that it's still the company divulging the information through their official website. (Patrick Norton, to his credit, defended the suggestion. I should also mention that Leo frequently plays the part of the technological neophyte in order to encourage discussion, so that could have been his role here.) Bear in mind, in a corporate sense, there's no difference between a blog and their website ... the company hosts both. It's simply a matter of getting information out quickly, and people have learned to look to blogs when they need information fast. It's clear evidence, however, that the word "blog" carries a lot of meaning on its own.

Undoubtedly, the TWiT cast considers each other to be reliable, authoritative sources (as is evidenced by John C. Dvorak's gushing over Hybrid Hard Drives, and immediate acceptance by the other TWiTs), and perhaps that's simply a matter of the TWiT folks being too comfortable in their own echo chamber. (That's actually the reason why I rarely listen to the show anymore, but that's a different discussion.) Needless to say, it's certainly wise to be critical of sources when doing any sort of research or letting information come to you. At the same time, dismissing a source simply because it comes from a blog without considering the history and background of the author in question is naive and foolish. It also contributes to an echo chamber effect when you dismiss good sources simply because of a label placed on them, keeping you from allowing someone else with valid thoughts and opinions to be part of the conversation.