The data is trustworthy, but not necessarily correct (and certainly not exactly correct – see below). BLS has a well-deserved reputation for independence and it is, at absolute best, churlish to suggest that they are subject to manipulation without evidence to the contrary. If that makes me, every economist on Wall Street, CEOs Democratic and Republican policymaers and others “retards” (whatever the fuck that means), so be it. If the OP would care to repeat the insult in the Pit, perhaps we can find some good words in response.
As to the “not necessarily correct” part, keep in mind that the employment data, and in particular the payroll adds data, is the result of a survey. A pretty darn good survey, IMO, but a survey nonetheless. Which means that there’s not only the chance of data error (the actual results falling outside the designated confidence intervals), but also question error – does the survey universe accurately reflect the constantly-changing economy, etc.? Historically, it’s pretty good, but of course it’s not exact. In particular, some informed people believe BLS falls a little behind during times of large economic change as in the incipient phases of expansion and contraction (though to my knowledge no one’s gone and proved it; the grad school paper of a lifetime is available for the right data nut). But even those observers grant that BLS gets it directionally right and within a degree of magnitude – close enough for policy decisions if one were inclined to made them off of that data.
Some responses to questions:
Zagadka asks where are these jobs, what about seasons, etc.? Well, they’re all in the United States. So no to your question which I’m going to treat as merely cynical and not macabre. You can see a summary of the industries which picked up employment here. It’s pretty broad based across industries, as were the not-adds in the prior few months, which is a little weird (not too weird). More often, one or a couple sectors “lead the way” in employment. It’ll be interesting how the data trends out over time.
That particular data is “adjusted” to account for seasonality. Other data in the same release are not; you can catch which ones are and aren’t in the link above. Also, wonks have vigorous arguments about how well the BLS adjusts seasonally, but again, there’s broad agreement that they’re directionally correct and pretty close.
Reeder asks (or asks by way of saying) what about the grocery workers, and what about the revisions?
The grocery workers were about 19,000 of the job adds. I think that’s gross; that any scabs laid off as a result of the strike settlement would be counted as subtracts separately. But I’m not confident of that and am certainly willing to receive correction on that point.
The revisions occur all of the time because of how they gather the data. Without going into too much detail, the monthly report reflects about 65 percent of the data – there’s still BLS guys working the phones when the report is released. The first revision is when about 80 percent of the data is gathered, etc. This kind of ties into what I said above about people’s belief regarding BLS and inflection points in the economy, but it’s also a normal part of the process. They weren’t conspiring to make Bush look bad in January and February with a correctional footnote which would be mostly ignored later on, for example. 
As should be apparent, I’ve got pretty high regard for the folks at BLS. I hope this little ditty has helped clarify some of the issue regarding the data they produce.
I personally never questioned the source, just the way the OP was phrased.