The blurry line between blogging and news reporting is getting worse with each passing day… guess it proves that people will believe anything if it’s written down. Like if someone takes the time to write it, it’s got to be true.

Could you imagine that? All your base are belong to me!

A new web site appeared on the ‘net recently: The Origami Project. It was outted – or helped out – by Scoble, who comments that it’s a code-name for a new kind of device. The Origami web site teases you today, but it tells you nothing… except that it will tell you something on Mar-02-2006. The rest of the blogging world responses with obvious and rampant speculation.

That’s the problem here. Not with the speculation… not with the more active rumors and chatter. It’s the fact that “news” blogs are reporting on the story as if they know what it is and when to expect it… whatever it is. Look at Ars Technica’s take on it… they have some obvious fun with it, sure, but they have one glaring detail wrong: “Whatever it is, it’s coming March 02, 2006.”

How do they know that? The Origami site simply says “learn more on 3.2.2006…” Learn more. They also have three links on the page: week 1, week 2, and week 3, yet only week 1 is active… to me that means that week 2 will enable next week with more information… maybe on, oh, I dunno, March 2nd? Who said the thing would be available on March 2?

And the bigger problem here is that real newspapers – in this case Seattle PI – have started using blogs as a sole source of information in news stories… no other research on their part, or so it seems. What the hell does this mean to “trustworthy news sources”? What blog is “always” correct? Even Scoble’s blog has had to post a correction or three over time. In most cases blogs are simply ramblings with no relationship to fact… how can that be considered a worthy news source?

I blaim the newspaper for being irresponsible on this one.