Is there any credible criticism of link journalism?

March 31, 2009 by Kurt
Filed under: general 

I’m working on another column for the American Society of Newspaper Editors’ quarterly magazine. The theme of the column will be about link journalism — how to do it, why to do it.

Part of my premise is that it’s been with us longer than the web has been around. How often have we heard an NPR Morning Edition anchor interview a reporter for another news organization who is at the scene of a major news event? Isn’t that just a form of “link journalism”?

At my news organization, we’ve incorporated link journalism into several of our sections, including politics, religion, sports and some of our blogs such as the Conversation about Race. We’re using the Publish2 tool to make it happen. If you know of other tools, I’d love to hear about them.

I’m challenged to find any reasons not to practice link journalism. Beyond the pedestrian concern about linking to stuff that’s not credible (and I don’t think anyone advocates that), why wouldn’t you do more linking? Has anyone heard a good reason not to?

Related Posts:

Tags: , , ,

Comments

View Comments on Is there any credible criticism of link journalism?

  1. David Stoeffler on Tue, 31st Mar 2009 10:08 am

    2. While I personally believe in the need for more link journalism, the fear some publishers would have is simply this – that by linking away from our site, people might find a better source and decide not to come back.

    I think there is some truth to this – just as there is some truth to the notion that the better we do with our web sites, the less people need a print newspaper.

    For example, I started off on Twitter following just a few people. Then, as I clicked on links provided by those people, I found other sources – most of which were also on Twitter. Now, I’m getting stuff directly from the source on Twitter – people like you, Jay Rosen, Steve Rubel – rather than needing Mashable or Romenesko as a guide.

    Since using Twitter, I now find I use Romenesko much less.

    And that’s the risk for newspapers with link journalism. We might not be as good as we think we are – and users might find another source and use us less.

    Personally, I believe link journalism is critical to building our own credibility and to establish that “trust” relationship with the reader. I want to be the most comprehensive source and by linking to other reports, I’m putting my readers first (and my business second). I think that will pay off in the long run, but not all publishers will agree.

  2. John Robinson on Tue, 31st Mar 2009 12:55 pm

    3. The other issue — it’s not a good reason, but it is an impediment to linking — occurs when the newspaper publishing system and the digital content management system don’t talk with each other. If I am writing a story on one system that doesn’t allow me to imbed links, I then have essentially work the story twice.

    As I said, it isn’t a good reason, but it’s an impediment.

  3. Kurt on Tue, 31st Mar 2009 2:53 pm

    4. Great points, David and John. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. It will be helpful as I put this column together.

  4. Bill Lambrecht on Tue, 31st Mar 2009 4:13 pm

    5. Hard to identify a negative about moving around smart information at a time we’re being criticized for breeding a dumb electorate. There’s high-minded criticism of adding to overload: David Foster Wallace, the novelist (from Champaign; taught at ISU a few years) warned that our greatest challenge is dealing with fragmentation — learning to filter the increasing streams of information coming at us. (Wallace didn’t tell us how to succeed before he hanged himself in Sept.)

    Another I’ve heard is boilerplate qualitative about the Web – that you can’t trust or verify what you find “out there.” But that’s really a retro argument. Besides, we choose the links; we’re the regulators here. Hopefully we know enough to weed out what is inaccurate or tasteless (or actionable.)

    I think most of us have left (or been kicked out of) the “walled-off gardens” of journalism, where news is owned. I’m not an expert, but it seems to me that a goal of aggregation is making people so happy about where you send them that they come back to you. Sort of like nailing a good story.

    But speaking of stories, I think we’re just learning how to use links to tell them. A question: For our survival, might we need need to figure how to monetize what we do well and gets circulated? For instance, Kurt Greenbaum is cutting edge in the application of social media in daily journalism. Are there ways his paper/online site can profit? Or does this violate an Open Internet credo?

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!





blog comments powered by Disqus