Tweets imply immediacy, crowd witness, etc. While blogs imply longer writing, research & fact-checking. Quoting a tweet is like quoting a dude in a crowd, but a bloger is someone doing the same thing as you. No one ever got caught in a public riot and wrote an essay about it on the spot, but they tweet about it.

There is no more research or fact-checking implied by a blog than by a series of tweets. There is only longer writing.

> It strikes me as kind of strange that some newspapers have absolutely no problem citing tweets as sources of information

That disease struck CNN extremely hard. It is not a news organization anymore - it just aggregates second and third hand hearsay from twitter. (Al Jazeera or Sky news tends to be better...)

Tweets are just people talking; blogs are the newspaper industry's competition.

>"but are too proud to admit they got a fact from a blogger."

Too proud? Where do you get that from.

As I see it someone looked at the blog post, clicked through to the petitelapgiraffe.com site and wrote about that site.

If they should write:

Source: petitelapgiraffe.com Referred from: iandennismiller.com

Should they also write who they were referred to iandennismiller.com from, who referred them there, etc., etc..

If they saw the story elsewhere first and then scouted around to see what people were writing about it, looking for an angle, then do they still need to write a "referred by" line? If they looked over someones shoulder on the metro and saw the original site do they have to cite that?

Just seems a bit silly.