Comments on: Why doesn’t Online Main Stream Media link?

By: BeatlesLane

BeatlesLane — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:05:50 +0000

Thanks for correcting it (loosing/losing), one less eyesore on the net :)

By: BeatlesLane

BeatlesLane — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:48:23 +0000

Darren, You’re the man, but I can’t believe you wrote “loosing readers” instead of “LOSING readers”. Haven’t enough people on the net misspelled “losing” already, ha ha. I expect better from you :)

By: Brusselsblogger

Brusselsblogger — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:37:20 +0000

It’s not just about linking to blogs:

When will online MSM learn to reference their sources in general: press releases, studies, reports, … Most of it is available on the web, at least in summary format.

But don’t forget that the problem starts already at the big news agencies: those agencies provide all their stories without links: and yes, this is also a technical challenge because major news distribution software and exchange formats don’t support links.

A lot of work ahead ….

By: Sara

Sara — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:12:02 +0000

They are starting to more and more. I just saw this science article – not at all about web/tech – that references the power of blogs and links to blogs. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/science/24ferm.html?ei=5090&en=0547013c0c751b0d&ex=1342929600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1185325492-SmLdbjJaMoP4vyNWn17zPw

By: Ed Sutherland

Ed Sutherland — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:23:29 +0000

As a member of the “main stream media,” there is a movement toward linking to blogs, however gradual. Witness the use by the WSJ of listing related blogs with their online stories. The reasons for there not being a quicker adoption of linking out is many.

1. It’s not about blogs. We wouldn’t link out to the NYT, let alone a blog. Just as a news org will write “Google bought Microsoft today, the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal reported Friday,” most news orgs would simply mention “…,according to the blog fluffy.com.”

2. Blogs have not risen to the point of a news source. Sources now are government/corporate officials, the wires and other news orgs. Right now, blogs are more lead generators.

By: uncle wilco

uncle wilco — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:03:04 +0000

The times in the UK is linking more since they have their new platform

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article2103431.ece

and not just on their blogs.

By: William Profet :: OneJobTwoSalaries.com

William Profet :: OneJobTwoSalaries.com — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:03:09 +0000

The Online Main Stream Media don’t link because they are bastards. They will get sick if they bring traffic to any other site than theirs! :))

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:00:58 +0000

Years ago the collective editorial staff represening several major tradtional news publications made a decision about linking out that was probably based on fear of the unkown. It became the de facto standard ever since, kind of like the AP style sheet, and traditional rank and file journalists don’t get to question editorial decision. Another example of old school thought getting it wrong early and having an adversion to change policy. Probably started at the NY Times or Wall street and filtered down from there…Just a thought

By: Michele

Michele — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:27:04 +0000

It makes no sense. I posted about this a while back:
http://www.mneylon.com/blog/archives/2007/05/24/hyperlinks-and-online-publications-silicon-republic-dont-get-it/

While I could try to understand how the online version of a print publication wouldn’t have links, I still fail to understand how online only publications don’t link – even when they’re reviewing another website!

By: John

John — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:05:31 +0000

It may be the whole “endorsement thing.” It makes me wonder if it’s also link hording.

By: Regan

Regan — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:51:53 +0000

Based on our experiences, MSM have been afraid of linking because a link is still viewed by them as an ‘endorsement’ and the legal departments seem to go ballistic if a MSM article links to a site that ‘may’ contain anything that they wouldn’t want to be seen endorsing. It is very backward in thinking and the majority of the time is completely unfounded.

By: mDave

mDave — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:52:12 +0000

Chris (comment #25) has it correct. I work in the entertainment industry where linking out is a major deal. CMT.com (a Viacom company) for example has the web 1.0 business plan meaning if we link out they won’t spent time on our site hence less ad views. Its the dead end subdivision you come in and don’t go out. They don’t realize that making the content more useful works better than just dead ending people to keep them on the site.

The company I currently work has a so called “Cyber Liability Policy” which can’t link to any website unless we have a working relationship with them. Otherwise we have to contact each website and get written or email permission to link. Then we have to submit it to our lawyers to get the “approval to link” on record. Bunch of BS which caused me to stop linking to any other sites. Easier not to link than go through all the work. Call me lazy but its just not worth the ROI at that point.

On my personal blog The Nashville Feed I tried to link to articles and any reliant information that would help my readers learn or understand the topic more. I like it better this way.

By: Mommy Zabs

Mommy Zabs — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:30:04 +0000

There has been a lot of good feedback I agree with so I don’t have a whole lot to add.

As far as tech people doing the posting- I’m far from a techie, I majored in fashion and am now a SAHM yet I know how to do simple programming. If someone is a web publisher knowing those things is the responsible thing to do. I agree with one of the commenters that this is sloppy and they should realize that this could better legitimize their information and increase reporting accountability.

I also think that because MSM has issues with the growth of blogging and the grasp it is biting into from their monopolies, they fear linking to blogs will give their stamp of approval, or legitimize blogging as an information source.

I watch MSM on t.v. but most of my news comes from blogs.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:03:35 +0000

I guess, they are not writing for the internet, but for the print media. Then they just post the text to the internet. What suprises me, is that not a lot of print media companies have adjusted to the internet. This is one of the typical examples – no links included in the article. So let’s see if this is ever going to change, I say yes it will.

By: Viral Electronics

Viral Electronics — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:51:14 +0000

I think main stream media is on the decline across the board and are afraid of losing visitors. They are always new upstarts and they know they will be replaced.

By: Kim

Kim — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:25:36 +0000

Arrogance. Whether that has led to not figuring it out or policy or whatever…it all mainly stems from their arrogance.

In other words, if as a MSM you aren’t reacting and then adapting proactively to what the underground tremors are from (in this case the online world of bloggers) then you are denying they are having any real or lasting impact. Right? That’s arrogance.

It’s only been recently, in the last year, that MSM has had their journalists start to blog themselves because if they plan to stay relevant then that is what they have to do.

My guess would be that this is a 1st generation iteration of how MSM will respond to the whole online world of media and marketing. There will eventually be a melding of the two worlds because online is too relevant. Sort of like what happened with the dot com bust in 2000 and it came roaring back with much more relevance….there won’t be a bust the way there was but there will be adaptations initiated by the big money.

At one point purchases online growth was so significant through 2006 that it often went into the triple digits in percentage growth, right? Now it’s slowing….more people are using it for research and then going back to the stores to do the purcashing. So it has ebbs and flows as businesses figure out how to manage the compass that guides the consumer.

This post is too long, sorry. Initially I was just going to say one word, arrogance…but here I am paragraphs later still talking. But I have to make one last point…being an observer of trends, I am seeing that the more successful of bloggers are moving to offline MSM events as well….so we are at the beginning of that movement, of the two worlds melding, happening. Don’t you think?

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:08:16 +0000

Maybe they don’t link out to niche sites unrelated to business because of search engine algorithms??? Maybe they’re afraid it’ll affect their PR or how their site is categorized on search engines…

By: redwall_hp

redwall_hp — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:29:30 +0000

Google’s pagerank system essentially boils down to Links In minus Links Out equals PageRank (plus some other fluff in there).

The sites are trying to both
a) Keep their PageRank up *rolls eyes*
b) Keep their visitors on their site.

By: blog contest

blog contest — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:17:20 +0000

Agreed. it is all about controlling traffic. Or trying to. In my popular sites, they got the traffic from blogs and non-traditional media. Even though it was featured or mentioned in many major media magazines, newspapers and sites. They just don’t link. And since it is a trend in that industry it isn’t like any of them area about to change any time soon. None of them are trend setters.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:49:09 +0000

I hope you put a nofollow on the link to the BusinessWeek article :-)