Whether or not somebody pays someone to hawk an opinion is just one of many factors that have to be weighed when reading blogs or other sources on the web. You have to keep your filters in top shape for a lot of things. You have already discovered that it pays to cross-check, locate original documents, and take past performance into account when dealing with a source.

The advantage of dealing with obviously partisan moonbats of either persuasion is that this attitude raises the caution flags for most people, and they keep the grain of salt handy.

It's the media and sources who pride themselves on being "objective" and "non-partisan," but are nothing of the sort, that catches a lot of people off-guard. I know what I'm getting when I watch Fox News, but a lot of people watching 60 Minutes probably thought for years that they were above that sort of thing.

Look at any news source that claims "objectivity," and ask yourself if they would have done one thing differently if the party they somehow invariably support was actually paying them.

The advantage of the internet is that it is highly competitive in the information department. One's crediblity is everything. In the past week or so, the conservative blogosphere has been reaming Armstrong Williams up one side and down the other. Good sources are still driving out bad ones for the most part.