On the one hand, I’m very happy to read about journos figuring out the value of links and relevant, well-written blogs to their work. Great post, Scott.

On the other hand….duh. “Link journalism” as a term stuns me; any Web-savvy writer does it without thinking. It’s our DNA.

Yes, although I blog extensively and have an absurd number of RSS feeds, I read my local dead-tree paper in Austin, AND the Round Rock TX thrice-weeekly “Leader.” I like a local angle, and I want to read at the kitchen table, not at my laptop, as I eat my breakfast.

I think I’m the only one on my cul-de-sac who walks out to get a paper off of the driveway every morning. Wake up, news guys; you’re toast in future years unless you figure out the Web.

Headlines like “Snow” or “More Snow!!!” don’t tell me much about what to expect from the post, so therefore don’t entice me to click over. To be successful, I think that such journalism needs to provide added value beyond simply linking, by helping to guide the reader to the best content or at least setting expectations on each link.

It’s much like creating a news story. The reporter must decide what facts to include in writing the story rather than simply publishing a bulleted list of facts.

Terrific post. I think linked journalism is a great way to understand new media’s impact on a reporter’s job — both nationally and locally as you point out today. Candidly, as a media consultant, the next step for me is to understand the role that PR professionals can play in this new reality.

For one, stories (both the good and bad) live on — not just in the blogosphere but as part of
a reporter’s story. I wrote about some of this today:
http://bernaisesource.blog.com/2843074/