Why Do Newspapers So Rarely Link Out?
from the good-questions dept
Bijan Sabet is asking a good question. It's one that's been asked plenty of times before, of course, but it remains relevant: why do so few newspapers ever link off of their site? He points to recent articles from the NY Times, the Boston Globe, the LA Times and the SF Chronicle, and notes that none of them have links to outbound sites. Some of this is due to a confused view of the web, that you never want to send people to another site, because (incorrectly) that means fewer page views on your own site. Of course, that ignores the fact that sites like Google have made quite a nice business out of sending people to other sites -- a business those very same newspapers are all quite jealous of. And, it also stems from the old line belief that the job of a newspaper is to tell you "everything you need to know," so why would you ever admit that there may be other sources of value? And, of course, that's why some people are getting sick of newspapers. Plenty of other online sources have learned that linking to others is an important part of the conversation, as is allowing readers/users/community members to explore the story themselves -- and to contribute to it. I still find it amusing when someone follows a link I've posted and then adds some interesting perspective/data point/fact and claims that they've somehow "caught" me making an error. That's part of why I post the links in the first place -- hoping that readers will continue to dig deeper and figure out more of the story and contribute and add to it. It's too bad so few newspapers feel the same way.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: links, newspapers, websites
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Annoyed
If I owned a paper I would even go one step further and intentionally link everything relevant to the article in the article itself and at the bottom of the article.
That is a service that ads (not a typo) value and in the age of endless information, people who can sift through it all and present me with the most relevant info are providing a very important service.
It's just amazing that the big papers haven't caught on yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Annoyed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Do Newspapers So Rarely Link Out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What??
Imagine, if you will, NY Times publishes an article about Google's "Monopoly" of the search engine business, linking to several studies and Alexa rankings. However, in the hustle and bustle, they made a tenfold error in the publishing (3.5% becomes 35%). Suddenly, web-savvy people are posting comments like confetti regarding what could easily be passed off as a typo or calculation error. This is something that is easily addressed and corrected in an online-only source (someone notices the error and it is corrected), however in a source that is published in many ways, around the globe (print, radio, online), it's a bit harder to "reign in" what might be as simple as missing a decimal on a calculator.
"Big Journalism" has a vested interest in always being 100% correct, so to actively link to sources that may or may not reveal a discrepancy is not in their best interest.
As an example, look at the turmoil caused by the article saying that HD DVDs had a higher saturation rate than Blu-Rays, because they neglected to factor in PS3 sales (arguably the best-selling and most-used Blu-Ray player on the market)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So our options are to tack a "box" of websites at the end of the story with links that have to be copy/pasted into the address bar or spending 20 minutes navigating the dashboard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simpler explanation
Most of the systems these papers have are designed to take copy, format it for printing in the newspaper, then pass it along to the website. If you want to add in all the hyperlinks, you need to manually edit it after it's published, and then hope that there are no changes in the original that cause your edits to be clobbered. The systems aren't designed to handle this elegantly.
This is solvable by building a better system, but no CFO is going to approve that project when there's *no* revenue tied to it.
Don't jump to evil when IT and Finance is the more likely answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simpler explanation
The argument presented is simply the internal capital and IT investment process of any company. And if newspapers are being held back by the CFO and a lack a vision/strategic planning, they will be held to account by the shareholders.
Seriously, a business case is simply an argument. If a company cannot determine the value of engaging and interacting with their EXISTING customers, they should try something else--like landscaping. But first, I'd still suggest they outsource their Marketing & Sales departments: customers don't seem to be their niche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of the really, really, really annoying..
For example, headline: "Report sez Canada is the worst place in the world for Movie Piracy".
"Really?, I think to myself. So, I have to read the article, find a quote lifted from the report, do a Google search of the string (filetype:PDF), and find the report online, so I can read it.
ps.: OK, I know why they don't provide links to the actual documents in online articles. They don't want us to read 'em. That way, we won't be able to say "Hey, that's not what the report says! This reporter's a tool!"
pps.: Gee, I wonder why people aren't reading newspapers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not just external links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evil
Any combination of Finance with another department is, by definition, evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linking out at news sites
"Link curating" as it's being called is a significant way to offer readers "new content."
There are some examples of what we're doing at
http://www.knoxnews.com/staff/jack-lail/
and
http://www.govolsxtra.com/staff/jack-lail/
and
http://www.knoxville.com/staff/jack-lail/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Research before you write
I was at a meeting of a few newspaper site editors who don't link out because they don't want to be seen as endorsing the credibility of the link's destination. They say this was based on actual user feedback. Fair to say that users who think that a newspaper, or any site, should be accountable for the information in external links probably shouldn't be using the Internet at all. And site editors should ignore them.
But don't post such blatant speculation to promote your assumption that 'newspapers are dinosaurs'. And what newspaper in their right mind is jealous of Google? Sure, maybe they're jealous of the money Google makes, but Google has nothing to do with news.
Your entire post was just one big uninformed cliche. Try to add some value next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Research before you write
In College, we are told to include all of our source information when we write papers. The reason for this is because the Instructor needs to validate the CREDIBILITY of our source. Could you imagine if we tried to use an argument like that editor?
“Well, see her Prof. I didn't tell you the source for that info because I didn't want to be responsible for its credibility.” The professor would so laugh you out of class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Research before you write
Are you new here? I make no claims to be a reporter. I write my opinion based on what information is there, and then we expect people to add more to it in the comments. It's a conversation, not journalism.
When you have a conversation with someone and they say something, do you criticize them for not having spoken to everyone before speaking to you?
I was at a meeting of a few newspaper site editors who don't link out because they don't want to be seen as endorsing the credibility of the link's destination. They say this was based on actual user feedback. Fair to say that users who think that a newspaper, or any site, should be accountable for the information in external links probably shouldn't be using the Internet at all. And site editors should ignore them.
See? You just added something to the conversation.
But don't post such blatant speculation to promote your assumption that 'newspapers are dinosaurs'. And what newspaper in their right mind is jealous of Google? Sure, maybe they're jealous of the money Google makes, but Google has nothing to do with news.
I gave my opinion, and now we're discussing it. I'm not sure why some people get so angry at me for giving an opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Research before you write
My first thought about linking to an outside source is the reliability of the link. If the link were to a 3rd-rate website that can't handle the traffic, several thousand hits would push it offline. Bad for both parties. I see this all the time with links posted on Slashdot and 4chan - often by the time I get around to reading the 3rd party info, the articles have been pushed offline by too many hits.
Then, if the source were able to handle the traffic, the paper/journal is still pushing an awful lot of traffic to the 3rd site that most likely would not have gone there otherwise. This is good for the site owner, if they advertise - but can cause a lot of misleading data. It could also be misconstrued as "favoritism" or "support" if the 3rd party site in question is referenced often.
All that said, I'm sure it does happen that editors or writers don't want to reveal their sources for fear of scrutiny. I wouldn't necessarily say that's the primary or only reason, however.
I read a lot on Wikipedia and find news or current events there whenever possible for just this reason - I want to get background on the story and see a story compiled from several sources, which few places save Wikipedia offer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least link to the source material
In addition, I'd like
1) well designed threaded comment area that would allow valued comments and
2) a BLOG headline list that would allow any blOG entry that talked about the article to be added, by the author, and sorted by popularity,
so that we could go the the WEB copy of the article, follow the source links and benefit from the WEB wisdom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Court Decisions for One
Supreme Court Rules School's Strip Search of Girl Was Illegal.
My interest in this is that the strip searching of your packets on the internet by ISPs on the pretense of trying to find contraband should also be considered illegal based on this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
arcane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]