Jack Shafer sure is right about this. The linking norms in the online versions of newspaper articles betray a very narrow-minded effort at profit-maximization that doesn't seem to understand that at the end of the day a website is only going to be profitable if its content is something people are going to want to read.
« Good Question | Main | The Trouble With War »
Links
06 Apr 2008 10:30 am
Comments (10)
Re "a website is only going to be profitable if its content is something people are going to want to read"
-------------
Hey, I have a suggestion. How about a newspaper that publishes the REAL NEWS -- instead of a pack of lies designed to con the American people into supporting the agendas of special interest groups?
The Truth --instead of deceitful PR packages put out because someone slipped some money to the newspaper's owners. A newspaper that conducts rational debate on what is in America's national interest -- instead of propaganda advocating disasterous policies which enrich a few and dump huge costs (in blood and tax money) off onto the common citizen.
Unfortunately, the American people would repay such a paragon by letting it be driven into bankruptcy. They not only want the Truth -- they want it for free. Even a 50 cent subscription is too much. Hence, they get what they pay for: Fox News
Which came first -- the chicken or the egg? Did the New York Times become a deceitful old whore because US citizens wouldn't support her -- or is her subscription collapsing because the readers wised up and decided they were tired of paying for the privilege of being deceived?
I suppose that automating the links is inevitable, given the sheer amount of text that a newspaper like The Times must put online every day. The best that one might hope for is the elimination of the inane dictionary feature and a staffer who will add some additional discretionary links.
I can't swear it's feasible technically then also to remove a few, but my favorite link thus far was from a movie title containing the French word "cher." Of course, it led to a certain survivor of the 1960s I'd just as soon forget.
at the end of the day a website is only going to be profitable if its content is something people are going to want to read.
And probably not even then. By definition, a website is only going to be profitable if its content can be produced for less than its revenues derived from advertising.
The real question is "how is old-style news reporting, which, involving as it does expensive boots-on-the-ground type reporting, is going to successfully compete with the likes of the Huffington Post, which operates a lot more cheaply by using no actual reporting at all?" In view of this 800-lb gorilla, "linking policies" and similar matters of style are a trivial sideshow.
As opposed to the current narcisistic weblog pre-occupation with VBlogs which have absolutely NO links? Stones... Glass Houses.... I'm looking at you, MY
The way newspapers link has nothing to do with mass or convenience. It has to do with simply creating more pageviews by creating useless "landing" pages with all the content the newspaper has on a keyword. "Alabama" or "dogs." It's utterly worthless to the reader, and hated by any Web-savvy reporter. But the business operations insist on such crap.
Matt, this is two consecutive posts where you've used the phrase "at the end of the day." That's at least one too many.
Compare:
Those are six words that add nothing.
Those are six words that add nothing, at the end of the day.
If your style demands this sort of prefacing, the following are more economical:
Ultimately, ...
In the final analysis, ...
In truth, ...
In fact, ...
What you meant to say is:
Matt, this is two consecutive posts where you've used the phrase "at the end of the day." That's at least, you know, one too many.
Shafer is right about these links being stupid, but wrong about their being something no actual human would put in. Wikipedia has similar problems, but it is human editors putting in stupid links.
OK: newspaper links may be even stupider than Wikipedia's. Yesterday's Washington Post as a review of a book about early baseball. It mentions The New York Kickerbockers, with a link to a page of links to articles about the basketball team.
Comments closed April 20, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
What you have is web sites being run by newspaper people. At first they had no links, because their conception of what a story is does not involve hypertext, even when the story is about things happening on the interwebs. Over time, they have come to understand -- well, perhaps not to understand, but at least to hear many times -- that their stories ought to have links, so they have added links -- lots of them. Because they're still writing content in the old way (except for Frank Rich), but now they've found some cheaper and easy way to automate the adding of links. The problem is that these people see links as a technological feature, not as an aspect of content. They aren't used to clicking through, because that's not how they read or write. It seems to me more of a cultural phenomenom than an example of profit-maximization.
Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | April 6, 2008 10:50 AM