Are Blogs Credible Sources?

I was reading a Seattle Times article today about mounting complaints against Apple. In the article, the author quotes a popular blogger. I immediately thought of all the writing rules and guidelines I was taught in my Comm classes, and I was pretty sure blogs were not considered credible sources. However, I thought, maybe they're gaining credibility... oh, wait, it's an article in the Seattle Times, so no.

Newspapers are losing readers, and credibility. They can't afford the research and coverage that's needed to publish good, credible content, so I guess they are starting to use incredible sources such as blogs. The quote the author used in the article I read wasn't necessarily a key quote or anything, but did appear to provide some of the base for the article, and it appeared early in the article (high in the umbrella style). I got this from New York Times editor, Bill Keller, who said:

"We've only got two things that distinguish us from blogs. One is we have reporting staffs who actually go out and see stuff and are trained professionals. And we have standards which are enforced by editors — you double-check things, make sure it's right — and all that costs money. If you aren't giving people the basics — good reliable news, smart analysis and in-depth investigations — then all they're going to see is the same stuff they can get on cable TV."

I think blogs can be credible sources of information, but it depends on the author. Saying that though, I still don't think a newspaper should use blogs as sources. It's just bad journalism techniques in my opinion. In the article I read, the blog's author is given, but it doesn't give me any insight into his profession, his credibility. It just notes that he's the author of the popular technology blog Daring Fireball. Why would I trust anyone who is just an author of a tech blog? The author of the article should have listed some credentials for this guy, that's all I'm sayin'.