PW Dem Blogers show why Blogs are Unreliable

One of the real issues with blogs both by the MSM and the public in general is that blogs are not held to the same rules and regs regarding accuracy as the MSM.

Two blog postings today out of PWCo show why that mistrust is well founded.

This AM as I cycled through the normal blogs, I saw that on 11.4.2006 the Howling Latina howled out (and what else would she do?)that a GOP internal polling showed Sharon Pandak leading in the PWCo Supervisor special election. She cited Craig Vitter's post as proof.

So I follow the link over to the primary posting at Craig's Musings, where Craig in the comments says he got the information from:

"I picked this up from an anonymous source. I checked around a bit last night before posting with other sources that told me they had heard rumors to the same effect in the past week about the GOP poll."

So, Craig-who in the last month has gone deep in the hole for all Democratic Party candidates-got information from an anonymous source, which he then verfied through other anonymous sources, and then posts as the gospel truth.

This is the nature of blogs, and the problem with blogs. Anyone can post anything they want, and the fact that the post is in electronic print suddenly gives it credence. If any newspaper, radio, and/or television station in the MSM printed such information and tried to pass it off as substantive news, they would lose whatever credibility they might have.

It is one thing to offer an opinion on a matter-based on whatever you want to cite. It is another thing-and a sad one at that-to try to pass off that opinion as fact while wrapping it in anonymous sources to give it some degree of legitimacy.

Update: Apparently Craig's source had the percentage right and the candidates wrong-Stewart over Pandak 53%-46%