Apparently blogs are more honest and reliable than mainstream news sources. That’s what Newscred’s Anayltics page says. As of August 3rd, blogs average a 99.6 CredRank, and the mainstream media ranks around a 99.3. This seems to be a small difference, but according to their nifty graphs nothing goes below a 99, making blogs 33% more credible.
So what conclusions can we draw? Apparently in all that editing, fact checking, and use of mostly non-anonymous (nonymous?) sources, the mainstream media loses cred. I assume this is street cred, because I always thought that standards and fear of libel is exactly what made the mainstream media credible.
So this leads to the obvious question: How do you rank credibility? According to Marisa Peacock and Newscred, its according to everybody. The community votes on credibility. Who knows more about credibility than the same people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster? Who can I trust to know honest news more than National Enquirer subscribers? Who can I rely on for fair and balanced journalism more than white supremacists?
All these people are unfortunately included in everyone, and everyone determines what’s credible on Newscred. I barely trust anyone, I definitely don’t trust everyone.
I’m not saying that bloggers aren’t credible as a whole, or that I don’t like blogs. If Hunter S. Thompson hadn’t blown his brains out, and had been born late enough to give a shit about the internet, he’d be a blogger. But Dr. Thompson was unashamedly biased, and he thought bias was what journalism needed. I agree to a degree. I enjoy a nice gonzo fiery diatribe as much as the next guy, but you need some straight facts to balance it out.