Pages

Thursday 14 May 2009

Why journalists must understand 'link journalism'

A while back Scott Karp visited the BBC. In some senses it was a sales pitch for his Publish 2 project. But more importantly he came to talk about his vision for 'link journalism' and much of what appears below is based on his thinking even if I have been stewing over it for a number of months. In short, this isn't new but I feel like it needs to be said again.

The link and link journalism

The hyperlink has long been recognised as one of the key features of the World Wide Web, so much so that I don't need to waste time explaining its functionality.

However, it's easy to forget that it wasn't immediately quite so obvious back in the early days of the World Wide Web, and the development of blogging was an important step in the increased use of hyperlinks.

In fact, there was a whole market for a site that actually used hyperlinks to keep sending people away from a website in a useful manner. A market that was almost entirely swallowed up by Google.

Journalists and media companies were slow to realise the value of the hyperlink because the conventional wisdom was that in order to make revenue from advertising people needed to spend time looking at your site.

What they didn't take into account was the counter-intuitive position that if people are consistently sent to interesting news articles from a media site people will consistently come back to the media website for more of the same.

Unfortunately, journalists were so slow to realise this, (despite the fact that Google was staring them in the face everyday on their computer screens), that they got way behind the game. It's only much more recently that linking out has become a regular feature of many news websites.

But journalists are still not making the most of link journalism. Because the practice of providing links for their readers is not fully integrated into their work processes and websites still don't offer spaces for journalists to display their links.

At the Frontline website we have a space for our bloggers (box, top right of the page) to share the links that we are reading. This provides Frontline Club readers with a highly editorialised and specialised 'best-of-the-web'.

If you want to know which articles to read on front line journalism then this is one of the best places to find a regular supply of information, without you having to do any of the hard work.

This is an example of link journalism, which I believe adds value to the website.

Why journalists don't do link journalism

In order for this to take place, bloggers have to be saving links and an editor has to publish them. When I talk about this idea with people, there are various objections from journalists.

First, saving links is not part of many journalists existing work practices. And yes, it does take a little time to set up something like delicious - about 5 minutes, and saving bookmarks can be time-consuming if you become addicted to it, but saving three a day can't take longer than 5 minutes even if you're technologically inept. And you might need a producer/editor to put them together, but there are some of those in media organisations, right?

Second, journalists still don't want to share stuff on the Web. I understand that if you are doing an investigation for an exclusive story you might not want to share links. Fine. I'm not asking people to be stupid with what they share - I don't share all of my links.

But if you save an article to Delicious, for example, from the Washington Post it's kind of out there already. Some journalists might be concerned that saving links reveals the sources they read. And it will do. But then surely this sort of transparency might be something to aspire to rather than shirk from.

Third, journalists think it's a waste of time or not journalism at all. When in fact, it's no different to what journalists have always done. Journalists have always tried to collect information and decide what people should know.

This model has been broken down by the Web because anybody can now recommend information through websites such as Digg. I think this is a positive development because it removes power from journalists. Why should journalists be the only people who decide what is important?

But on the other hand, most people still respect journalists' attempts to make sense of the world on their behalf by sorting through information. Because they don't have time to do that themselves all the time. In this sense, journalists add value to society and it's nothing new - it's a process that has been going on since journalism began.

Why journalists should be doing more link journalism

On the World Wide Web, we are presented with an extraordinary amount of information. I would suggest that helping other people to navigate that information is part of the journalist's duty. (In the BBC's case, part of its remit is being a 'trusted guide to the Web'.)

And if you provide a way for people to access the most relevant, and interesting material on a regular basis then I suggest that people will consistently come back to your website, because a highly specialised, hopefully expert, and ultimately human selection method will have many advantages over Google News and news aggregators.

In addition, if journalists are more pro-active in linking to valuable content then these pages will climb search rankings.

I suggest therefore that journalists must understand the value of link journalism. Many still don't.

Wednesday 13 May 2009

A sort of 'shovelware' at the BBC?























Just now, I was putting together a round up of blogging reaction to the appointment of LTG McChrystal as commander of US forces in Afghanistan.

I noticed that Mark Urban had a written a blog post about it for Newsnight. But then I also found a more or less identical copy of the post on the main section of the BBC News website.

I always thought part of the idea of blogs at the BBC was that they offered something different to the rest of BBC content in terms of style, tone or information, even if everything must adhere to the same editorial values.

I suppose this demonstrates that journalists don't always have the time to re-version material. I'm not sure which came first - the online piece or the blog, but if that was me I'm pretty confident I wouldn't bother spending the time to put either one of them into a 'blog' or 'website' 'style'.

I wonder whether we need two copies of the same thing on the same website, but there may well be people who read the BBC's blogs and people who read the rest of the website - why not make it available to both audiences?

Monday 11 May 2009

Watch this space (or use RSS - it'll save you some time)

I'm just writing some blog posts about my recent travels to Washington DC for the military blogging conference (now here) and Athens for a new media and information conference. More soon...

(This is taking longer than expected due to technical problems. I shall say no more because they are very frustrating - all of them)

Wednesday 22 April 2009

The 'perils of live text'

From the BBC's live budget coverage today:
1306 Sorry to those of you who have not refreshed the page recently - the estimate of government borrowing for this year is £175bn - NOT £275bn - sorry - the perils of live text!
And a little later on Martin Belam pointed me to this correction issued by Reuters on Twitter:
"CORRECTED - Darling to introduce new tax rate of 50% from next April on incomes over £150k (not 100k) #budget http://r.reuters.com/myb44c"

Tuesday 21 April 2009

What do you use Twitter for?

Just been listening to the Guardian's inaugural 'Media Talk USA' podcast featuring some of the usual new media suspects. Thought I'd pull out these thoughts on Twitter by Jay Rosen, author of Press Think. Here's how Jay uses Twitter:
    • Twitter allows me to develop a constituency for my work.
    • It edits the web for me.
    • It's my giant hand-built tipster network. It's a great way to basically have people read the news for you and point out what's important.
    • I'm using it to help me blog. I use Twitter to sort and realise what is really important and then I can take the reactions that I've got on Twitter, really think about them and craft a post that I already know is right in the centre of the conversation.
So what do I use Twitter for (in no particular order)?

1. Feeding and promoting my blog posts
2. Networking and contacts
3. Asking for help
4. Helping other people out (First, I enjoy helping people and second, if you are always doing 3. and never do 4. you might find that 3. becomes pretty redundant)
5. Exchanging useful links on media and conflict
6. Retweeting interesting tweets
7. Monitoring (breaking) news
8. Informing people about the progress of the work I am doing
9. Providing updates from talks and conferences (though not too many)
10. Finding blogs
11. Finding people
12. Taming the Web
13. Creating a virtual office
14. Tracking conversations between other people that are also of interest to me

Similar lists to be found at Blog Herald, The Guardian, and in video format on Vimeo.

Monday 20 April 2009

Bits and pieces on blogging and journalism

  • Blogger cleared of misleading South Koreans on the state of the economy. Funnily enough it turned out that Park Dae-Sung's ("Minerva") exaggerated claims of financial turmoil weren't that exaggerated after all.
  • BBC online journalist Adam Blenford on the G20 photographers and the blurring of amateur and professional photojournalism.

Wednesday 15 April 2009

Blogging about Twitter

Not been much blogging going on here lately.

But you might be interested in my Frontline posts on Moldova (1 and 2) and media coverage of the G20. Though the latter seems like ages ago.

I've been reminiscing lately about the good old days when I used to blog about blogging. These days I only seem to blog about Twitter.

In protest, at my inability to keep on topic, check out the epic policing FAIL at the end of this rather extraordinary little snake story.
 
Copyright 2009 Mediating Conflict. Powered by Blogger Blogger Templates create by Deluxe Templates. WP by Masterplan