adrian holovaty

September 18, 2003, 2:06 AM ET

Transcripts add to a story if handled fairly

JD Lasica has posted a fine weblog entry whose title asks: Are emails private? And should bloggers scoop their interviewers?

The questions stem from a recent development that I've indirectly been a part of: OJR columnist Mark Glaser has said he's a bit frustrated that bloggers whom he has interviewed have posted interview transcripts to their blogs before Mark's final articles are published. In essence, the bloggers "scoop" the reporter himself -- which might be unethical, or at least in bad faith.

JD's article raises more than a few interesting questions: Is the reporter doing his subjects a favor by quoting them, or vice versa? And is it ever acceptable for an interview subject to post a transcript? On what terms?

This is a fascinating issue. For the record, I was one of the folks Mark interviewed for his latest article, although I didn't post the transcript until yesterday night, after his column was released. (It was another source for the same column who pre-posted.) I did it mostly for the benefit of people who wanted more information about the topic at hand. And since he only ended up using a paragraph of my response, I didn't want my other interview responses to go to waste. Plus, I believed I had the right to post my very own opinions to my Web site.

I probably wouldn't have posted it before the story, out of respect for Mark. And if he'd asked me not to Web-post my comments at all, well, I probably would have obliged, only to kick myself later. (Don't I own my own words?)

But I must say that, as a reader with a strong interest in the topic, I really enjoyed looking through the interview transcripts posted by the other folks. Without question, those transcripts add to the story. And that's not to say that Mark's column wasn't excellent; a well-crafted, smartly-edited article is a better way to present the story than a bunch of transcripts, which in and of themselves are supplementary at best. I only wish the full transcripts were linked-to from the column itself.

I look forward to the day when it's standard practice for news organizations to Web-post full interviews themselves.

Comments (3) / Permalink

September 17, 2003, 1:31 AM ET

New additions to the 'Recommended' list

Recently I've added a number of sites to the "Recommended" list on my home page:

• Digital Deliverance weblog offers insight from one of the most respected folks in the online-journalism biz, Vin Crosbie. In particular, Vin's recent entry about Web standards (originally posted to the online-news list) is one of the most eloquent pro-standards pieces I've read.
• CyberJournalist.net is a well-done weblog covering well-done online journalism.
• Poynter's E-Media Tidbits has been a favorite site of mine for years, but it only recently began pinging weblogs.com, which is a prerequisite for inclusion in my blogroll. (Pssst: That's actually my automated script doing the pinging, because the Poynter folks declined to respond to my numerous e-mail requests.)
• Daily Python URL is, well, a fix for my newfound Python addiction.
• Kaye Trammell is a blog-savvy online journalism teacher at the University of Florida. She's actually working on a dissertation about celebrity weblogs. Always has interesting things to say from an academic perspective.
• Interactive Narratives is a new group weblog devoted to online storytelling. Disclaimer: I'm a part-time contributor.
• Textually.org has a great handle on innovative uses of SMS, inside and outside of a journalism context.
• Finally, Jay Rosen's PressThink is only a few days old, but it has jumped out of the gate with a number of outstanding entries. Written by an eloquent NYU journalism professor and press critic, it aims to "discover the consequences in the world that result from having the kind of press we do."

Comments (4) / Permalink

September 16, 2003, 9:01 PM ET

OJR interview transcript: Linking policies

Online Journalism Review's Mark Glaser interviewed me for his latest article, News Sites Loosen Linking Policies. As I have done previously, I've posted the interview transcript here for anyone who's interested.

UPDATE: Jonathan Dube and Jeff Jarvis, two other sources interviewed in the story, have posted their transcripts, too:

• Jonathan Dube's transcript
• Jeff Jarvis' transcript (scroll down a bit)

Here's mine:

At the sites you've worked for, what have been their policies for linking to outside sites? Any restrictions?

When I worked at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Web site, the only policy we had regarding outside links was to open them in a new window. We used them only occasionally.

Here in Lawrence, we gladly link to outside sites, including competing news sites, whenever appropriate. Our philosophy is that linking to helpful outside sites actually improves our credibility and helps solidify our reputation as the one-stop-shop for the niches we cover (University of Kansas sports, the Lawrence music scene and Lawrence news in general).

The best example I can think of is our coverage of the hiring of a new basketball coach at KU. We knew that Jayhawk fans from across the country would be checking our site every five minutes, hungry for any updates, so we gladly provided deep links to outside coverage as a service to our readers.

• kusports.com/basketball/self/
• kusports.com/news/nextheadhawk/

You know what? It worked. That coverage resulted in some of the highest traffic numbers KUsports.com had ever seen. The traffic spike was probably not *directly* related solely to our publishing of external links, but I have no doubt the links played a part. It's clear people weren't leaving our site through outside links; they were actually visiting us *more*.

Another example: On the home page of Lawrence.com, we used to have an "Overheard" box, in which our editor would put a tantalizing quote either from our message boards or from an outside message board (usually Larryville.com, a rather controversial, independently-run community board). We didn't get much feedback, good or bad, about this, but it's another example of our philosophy.

(We got rid of the "Overheard" box recently, but only because the home page was getting a bit too bloated.)

What do you think about news sites restricting links to outside sites? Is that good or bad news judgment?

I think it's more than a question of news judgment; it's also a question of business rules. Some site managers see outside links as a threat, and they make the business decision not to include them, or at least to limit their use.

I don't agree with that thinking, though. Sites that knowingly restrict links to outside sites are selling themselves short. It's a classic example of not embracing the Web.

The way I see it, editors who are afraid of linking to other sites clearly don't trust the value of their content. If an editor is really proud of his or her site, why on earth would he or she worry about users clicking away to other sites? Wouldn't it make sense that a well-done site would be visited regularly by people who are interested in its contents? Where's the trust? Where's the professional pride? I just don't get it.

If nothing else, a news site should include a relevant external link if the story itself has to do with a Web site. I've read Web stories in the past that have devoted paragraphs of explanation to a Web site or service, without linking to the thing! Can you believe that?

What about sites that don't want readers to go to other sites? Do these links drive traffic away from their site in a meaningful number?

I don't know official numbers, but, for what it's worth, I can say from personal experience and observation that links do not drive reader traffic away.

Do you believe Weblogs will change outside linking policies, making them more liberal in the future?

Absolutely. Weblogs have proved that there is value in aggregating links for a particular niche. Romenesko is the perfect example.

Any other comments about outside linking?

A side topic is the question of whether to open a new window for external links -- an issue that's been debated for quite some time. I side with the people who encourage Web developers not to open new windows, because I prefer to browse using tabs, and getting smacked with a new window is quite disruptive. I'll control my Web browsing experience, thank you very much. Opening new windows also could confuse novice Web users (I've seen it happen), and it causes accessibility problems.

Comments (2) / Permalink

September 10, 2003, 2:55 AM ET

'AIM this story' on FOXSports.com

I just learned that FOXSports.com has added "AIM this story" links on its story pages (example), right up there with "Print this story" and "Email this story":

Bravo. That's a great way to encourage word-of-mouth marketing by the thousands of people who leave Instant Messenger open all day long. Although other sites have been doing this already, FOXSports is the first big-name site that's jumped on the bandwagon, to my knowledge.

A few thoughts on this technique:

• Their current solution works well as a single-click step, but in the long run, a more generic "IM this story" would be a better service. A second screen could let users select the instant-messaging software they used and send the message from there. Of course, it's possible AOL paid FOXSports to include this feature on each story page, in which case the business decision of money vs. user-friendliness is Fox's to make.
• The FOXSports link uses the AOL-proprietary aim: protocol. Using that protocol assumes the user has either installed AOL Instant Messenger or messed with obscure parameters to get the aim: protocol to work correctly in a browser. Do Web junkies like you and me know this? Yes. Does Uncle Fred realize his computer must have AIM installed in order to use such a link? Not necessarily. At the very least, the link should say something like "Requires AOL Instant Messenger," or even "Requires AIM," with a link to download the program.
• I was going to suggest that FOXSports implement some sort of JavaScript detection of whether the aim: protocol was valid on the user's computer, and then display the link only if it were available. But I Googled and hacked around, and there doesn't seem to be a way to detect available protocols in a browser. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) You'd think those security-conscious folks at Microsoft would have thought to put a detectAvailableProtocols() method in Internet Explorer's JavaScript implementation.

Comments (9) / Permalink

September 3, 2003, 12:00 PM ET

Die, comment spammers

Recent comment spam on this site has gotten to be annoying, so I've taken a cue from Simon Willison (who's my new coworker) and set up a comment domain blacklist. Comments that contain a link to any of the blacklisted domains will not be posted.

As on Simon's site, you're welcome to grab my blacklist file once every 24 hours to use it as part of your own comment-spam prevention system.

Comments (23) / Permalink