The Yiddish word chutzpah is usually defined as a boy who kills both his parents then pleads for mercy on the ground that he is an orphan. I'd suggest a more contemporary use of the word. The idea of Paul Staines - the man behind the Guido Fawkes blog - portraying himself as a truth-seeking political hero crusading against smears and lies is rich in chutzpah.

Because for all the genuine exposés on Mr Staines' site, there are any number of untruths. I know this because some have been about me.

Until recently, I ran a think-tank in Brussels. Mr Staines used his site to accuse me of writing pieces at the behest of companies which funded the think-tank. He even published a story, after I had written in praise of McDonald's in The Times, that I was being funded by the burger company to do so. I had, of course, never had any dealings of any kind with anyone from McDonald's (other than on my rare forays through the Golden Arches).

So I am no starry-eyed fan of blogging per se. But I am evangelical about the benefits that it can bring - and I accept that the price of being able to print genuine exposés may be the freedom to print rubbish.

“E-mailgate”, however, is not rubbish at all. It is an old-fashioned scoop - a story so important and secret that any newspaper would have leapt at the chance to run it. Indeed, in this case, blogging was not the point. Guido Fawkes didn't even run the story on his blog. He passed it to two Sunday newspapers (whether or not for profit we do not know) because he wanted maximum impact.

But the fact that Mr Staines was either handed the e-mails or obtained them for himself is itself evidence that he and other bloggers like him have now become part of the political process.

It's important, however, to keep blogs in context. Those who dismiss them as an irrelevance to real politics, like those bloggers who dismiss the mainstream media as archaic, are equally wrong. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people still get their news from traditional media, whether it is newspapers or broadcasters.

Guido Fawkes had 147,689 unique visitors last month. A big number for an independent website, yes; but small fry compared with the millions who, for instance, watch BBC News.

So what? Even the most serious blogs don't pretend to be in direct competition with the mainstream media. To understand blogs, and the impact they can have, you have first to understand that they are not usurping the traditional media; they are adding to them.

And that goes to the heart of the real impact of blogs. Had the story broken on Guido Fawkes's site, or any other blog, it would certainly have had an impact: but only, initially, within what is known in the rather ugly jargon as the blogosphere - the online community that reads blogs.

The real impact of a blog story happens only when it moves into the traditional media. Many stories emerge online about politicians; but they only affect their careers when a newspaper makes them part of the broader news agenda.

It was a Guido Fawkes scoop about Peter Hain's expenses declarations that did for the now former Cabinet minister. But it had zero direct impact when it remained on Guido's site. It was only when the traditional media ran with it and an official investigation was launched that the story ended up bringing Mr Hain down.

I know from my own experience as a blogger, a columnist and now an editor that there is no comparison between the impact of a newspaper and a blog. If I write something critical of government policy on my blog, it might produce a sage nod in agreement somewhere, but that's it. When, however, the Jewish Chronicle recently attacked the Government's plan to grant a visa to Hezbollah's spokesman, it helped to bring about a volte-face by the Home Secretary.

That's not to decry what blogs do. For one thing, our draconian libel laws prevent newspapers printing many stories that they know to be true. I tear my hair out with frustration at the number of stories my paper cannot run, even though I know we could defend them in court, because we simply do not have the time or money to involve ourselves in hugely costly legal action.

Blogs such as Guido Fawkes, which are hosted beyond UK jurisdiction, are far freer and can publish all kinds of gossip with impunity. And once it is in the ether, even if only online, a story can affect the way that journalists and Westminster insiders regard a politician.

Blogs have another benefit: flexibility. A blogger need only make one short point in a post. For a newspaper, a big story needs length and context to have impact and must conform to a specific design.

In the end, the difference between quality newspapers and even serious blogs is that your default reaction to a newspaper piece should be that it is true, whereas your default reaction to a blog post should be that it might be true, but it might equally well be a pack of lies. Rather like government smear campaigns.

Stephen Pollard is Editor of the Jewish Chronicle. He blogs at www.thejc.com/stephenpollard

Times Recommends

• Darling won't pay for Brown give-away
• Believe it or not, Big Brother is your friend
• E-mails were quoted out of context