there is a really interesting discussion going on this week, whether online journalists should cite other online “journalists” who “broke” the stories. it’s actually pretty complex question andÂ this article sums it up greatly.Â it actually touches some points I wrote about a few days ago – the new, self proclaimed “tech journalists”Â have no idea how the real media ethics works, yet they demand same credit and awe.
Why Journalists Need to Link | Epicenter | Wired.com
If it was Sieglerâ€™s article that caused Vascellaro to call Apple, then Siegler certainly counts as an online resource used in writing the WSJ story, and should therefore, by Strayâ€™s formulation, be fully linked and credited. On the other hand, if Stray agrees with Siegler, that doesnâ€™t mean that Siegler agrees with Stray. Siegler cited no source at all, named or anonymous, for his scoop that Apple had bought Chomp: He simply asserted the fact. â€œApple has bought the app search and discovery platformÂ Chomp, weâ€™ve learned.â€ If every statement in news writing needs to be attributed, then Siegler just failed that test.
it’s great to see journalists are starting to be aware of the need to link outside their own domain.
- Sins of the Internet… (delong.typepad.com)
- We don’t own the news we break (boingboing.net)
- A blogger or a journalist? Debate over the power and influence of tech writers (guardian.co.uk)
- Is linking just polite, or is it a core value of journalism? (gigaom.com)
- Why journalists need to link (blogs.reuters.com)