QUOTE(cookiehead @ Thu 29th July 2010, 1:29am)
This link doesn't really tell us much WRT the thread title, though. So, just from a cursory look at the site in question, I'd say there are several aspects that might make it appear to be a "reliable source" from Wikipedia's perspective:
1. No bylines
2. Posts are written in the form of news stories (though most are really just copied from press releases); anything written from first-person perspective is relegated to Perspectives
3. Titles of posts almost never contain names of individuals (but plenty of acronyms and company references)
4. Site operator refers to himself as both "editor" and "publisher"
5. "About" page contains clear statement that the site is a commercial entity, actively looking for advertisers
So basically, this site is strictly business - no partisan political commentary, no occasional "bits thrown in" about Paris Hilton or kittens or Fox News, no silly Youtube video embeds, no nothing. It doesn't look like a blog, read like a blog, or act like a blog, and it certainly doesn't say it's a blog.
Personally, I would call Greencarcongress.com a "press release aggregator with guest commentary," which I suppose could be called a "blog" by some (maybe even most) definitions. But as for acting as a kind of "how to" for blog-spammers, the problem is that if you have to limit yourself to that extent just to appear to be a "WP:RS," what's the fun of having a blog at all?