Trouble is, it’s a bit like asking “Do you trust people who talk?” or “Do you trust people who write letters to the editor?” – it depends on who they are, what I know about them, where they’re coming from, what their agenda is etc etc. In its current form, I can’t imagine the results of the survey can be used for much as the questions are too ambiguous (which in my case meant I often chose ‘neither agree nor disagree’).

When asked if, on a scale from 1-7, you agree or disagree that private persons who blog are credible, which number to pick? Yes, I trust the blogs penned by private persons I read regularly (surprise), but that is not to say I trust all private persons who blog – and why would I spend time reading blogs I don’t find credible?

As a journalist, it’s not unusual for me to use blogs as a starting point for my reporting. But I see the blogosphere a bit like a virtual pub: you don't go home and write up what some stranger said over a few pints as if it is the whole and unvarnished truth, but the “pub” is a great place to get ideas, input, leads - information that has to be examined further.

Of course, if you run into a regular you know quite well, and who you know is a director with the company he talks about, you will trust his account much more and perhaps not spend an equal amount of time checking his credibility etc:

I don't treat online sources all that differently from how I treat real world sources, and of course I’m more likely to trust the ‘regulars’ in my ‘local’ cyber pub  - that’d be the one where all the media geeks hang out – and the people they recommend, more than a total stranger, say from the place where the stamp collectors hang out. It’s also a lot easier for me to verify the credibility of a media person than a stamp collector, as I know the media industry and its issues very well, but know precious little about stamps: how to judge them, who’s who in the stamp world etc.