Amid scandal, The New York Times declines to admit it doesn't like linking to others' work. But that's what makes Web reporting transparent
In the coverage of New York Times writer Zachary Kouwe, who resigned recently amid accusations of plagiarism, much has been said about the demands of writing for the always-on Web, and how this might have contributed to Kouwe's missteps—something the writer himself referred to in a discussion of the incident as described by Clark Hoyt, the Times' public editor.But Reuters columnist Felix Salmon was first to put his finger on what I think is the real culprit: a lack of respect for the culture of the Web, specifically for the value and necessity of the link. Kouwe describes in an interview with the New York Observer how he felt pressured to cover offbeat news items for the blog as they came up. He'd pull together bits and pieces of coverage from elsewhere on a story, then rewrite them into his own post or story. This, he says, is how the plagiarism occurred: He didn't keep track of which pieces of text he had pulled from somewhere else and which he had written himself. As Salmon notes, what a blogger would do in this case (at least a good blogger) is to link to other sources of material on the topic, rather than rewrite them. "Anybody who can or would write such a thing has no place working on a blog. If it's clear who had a story first, then the move into the age of blogs has made it much easier to cite who had it first: Blogs and bloggers should be much more generous with their hat-tips and hyperlinks than any print reporter can be." "transparency is the new objectivity"
Linking isn't just a matter of etiquette or geek culture (although it is both of those things). It's a fundamental aspect of writing for the Web. In fact, the ability to link is arguably the most important feature of the Web as a communications or information-delivery mechanism. Before the Web came along, journalism and other forms of media were islands unto themselves, each trying to pretend that it existed alone, with no connection to what came before it. Links are like bridges and roads that allow these islands to connect to each other, making it easier for readers to draw connections. Links also make it easier for readers to understand a writer's perspective, and thus are an important tool in disclosing bias. (In an eloquent discussion of how transparency is the new objectivity, author David Weinberger said that objectivity was something "you rely on when your medium can't do links.") Unfortunately, however, those bridges and roads can take readers elsewhere. If your business depends (or you think it depends) on keeping those readers on your island, you might think twice about building that bridge. You might recreate information that exists elsewhere in the hope that readers won't notice. Is that part of what pushed Kouwe to rewrite material for the blog? Salmon suggests it might be. If that's what he was doing, the Times writer is far from alone. That's not to say that Web-only sites are free of such behavior. Some news sites have become notorious for either rewriting an entire post from a competitor or excerpting huge portions of the content on their own sites, with just a small link that credits the original source. The economic incentive is the same, whether it's a Web-only outlet or a traditional media Web site: to aggregate page views and sell them to advertisers. But at least most Web-only sites that do this tend to include links, even if only in small print at the bottom. Similar behavior in print publications usually comes with no links at all. blame traditional print media culture
Plenty of mainstream publications have avoided linking out until relatively recently, or at least have linked as little as possible. The Times is in that group, despite its status as a leader in so much of what we think of as "new media" online. For a long time, the newspaper's Web site would only link (when it linked at all) to internal Times topic pages. It has started adding more links to external sites, but many stories still contain no links at all. Lots of newspapers do the same thing. In some cases this is a technical issue, in that print-based content management systems often make it difficult to include links. A bigger part of the problem is cultural. Traditional print media workers are used to thinking of themselves as the be-all and end-all of information—the only source that anyone could possibly need (despite the fact that many stories are based either wholly or in part on reporting by wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters), and are loathe to give anyone else credit. That has to change. The ethic of the Web, as Jeff Jarvis repeatedly points out, is "do what you do best and link to the rest." If Kouwe or his employer had fully embraced that approach, he might not have had to apologize for anything.
Also from the GigaOM network:
10 Austin Startups You Should Meet While You're at SXSW
The Rise of Netbooks
Why You Still Need Business Cards
My iPad Wish List
7 Startups Building Green Car tech for a Pre-electric World