To fix terms, I will take credibility to refer to the power to elicit belief. A statement is credible if it inspires belief and a person is credible if what he says inspires belief.

Thought experiment. Suppose there is a new blog authored by one "Laksa Man" (henceforth LM) on the scene. It doesn't take long before the readers perceive that LM takes consistent pro-establishment positions. In fact, most of LM's arguments for various public policies are versions of the officially announced justifications for these policies. An enterprising blogger does some snooping around and found out that LM is in fact a certain Mr. Ronald De Sizza, who happens to be a prominent member of the ruling party's youth organ.

Questions: (1) Does the fact that a writer articulates consistently pro-establishment positions affect one's perception of his credibility, and if so how? (2) Does the fact that he does so under a pseudonym affect one's perception of his credibility, and if so how? (3) Does the fact that the writer turns out to be part of the establishment affect one's perception of his credibility, and if so how?

Second thought experiment. As above except that LM now articulates consistenly anti-establishment views and is later discovered to be someone deeply associated with some opposition party. Questions modified accordingly.

Discuss.