That's Rich

It's always fun for the newspapers, even the student-run variety, to complain that you should discount information online when the sources of the various stories are not identified or treated as anonymous law enforcement officials.

In the cyber-age, citizens (especially younger ones, like students) post their thoughts and opinions on blogs and Web pages that are read across the country.

It is usually easy to discern blogs and other extremely personal and unchecked sites from legitimate news sources like newspaper or news station Web pages.

But certain sites (that have obvious socio-political agendas) have been referenced as fact by individuals who have written us, posted on our Web site and spread this “information” throughout the World Wide Web.

And that is an example of how, sometimes, the Internet can act as a carcinogen of truth; especially if readers don’t consume this media critically.

If a “news story” does not name its sources, raise an eyebrow. If that story sites “very credible sources” as sources, raise the other one.

I guess they don't mind when the New York Times, Washington Post, or any other mainstream news outlet cites anonymous sources for sordid details on anything ranging from the Bush Administration actions that they don't agree with, or with any other investigative work that does not reveal the names or identities of anyone involved, yet spins damning conclusions in pieces.

In other words, it isn't just the bloggers they have to worry about. They should focus their ire on the papers and media that are often the basis for the blogging stories in the first place.