Most media folks know that casual readers and viewers don’t really care if one news organization beats another by a few minutes on a story.
That’s about the pride of those involved.
If you were beaten, you either searched for a new angle or rehashed what was done, trying to add value in some way.
I figure that will long continue into the future, but I think something should change, an admission of sorts.
When bloggers find out about a story they often throw a “Hat tip,” linking out to wherever that topic or story idea originated from. I hope that transparency can make its way to mainstream news.
If I find a story I should cover through another media outlet, I think it imperative that I make that admission clear. If you earn a reader’s trust in thinking you improve that content or offer that reader something more, that link is nothing more than sourcing, a valuable kind of link.
I would say that if a media organization is beaten in time by another source but got the story on its own, it doesn’t have to offer the link, and they likely won’t, even though I think that, too, can serve a valuable purpose of respect for the others out there.
It’s a fundamental tenet of early-adopting Web users. It’s also a chance to keep attribution alive in a big way.
Let me cart out this phrase for the 1,000 time: do what you do best and link out to the rest. You have to find your niche that you cover better than anyone, and you need to develop a following of readers who appreciate your sharing valuable links, curating the Internet.
Think that will ever really happen in a widespread manner?
One thought on “What links should mean to news media in the future”