On linking, editorial
It’s a little late for me to enter the conversation — I’m out of town this weekend, which was supposed to be internet / work-free, sorry Veronica! — but for reference, something needs to be said on Engadget’s behalf regarding Scoble’s post earlier today. (If you want the shorter, Calacanis-style take, head here.)
First, I have to be clear: I like Scoble, and I dig his work. He’s in both my personal and professional feeds. More importantly, I consider him a colleague and a personal friend; I’ve invited him into my home, I’ve worked together with him, and I look forward to knowing him in the future — which is partly why I was taken aback today when he accused us (and just about everybody else on the block) of conspiring not to link to other blogs (namely, his blog).
I’ve written about blog ecosystem (and Engadget’s place in it) before; I believe it’s wholly symbiotic relationship. I don’t believe I would get to do what I do for a living without the support of the blogosphere; likewise, I doubt we would have as much interesting content as we do without reading (and linking to) smaller, more specialized tech sites. Just for grins here’s my totally unscientific breakdown Engadget content:
60% news found on other tech sites, blogs, forums, etc. (non-MSM)
15% press releases / directly sourced news
10% MSM news (found there or editorial)
10% original feature content
4% insider info, tip-offs, etc.
1% announcements, contests, etc.
A quick glance at the page right now showed some 10 or 11 out of 15 posts had a link to another blog or independent tech site, either as a “via” link (where we found out about some news) or as a “read” link (where we found the news itself). So maybe it’s actually way more than 60%, maybe it’s 85%, who knows. The point is, since day one we’ve linked to other blogs; as far as I know, Peter invented the “via” link, which is a courtesy / hat-tip link we use to acknowledge finding something somewhere (while also pointing to the true source of the news with the “read” link). We’re not forced to “via” link, we choose to. It’s a courtesy we’re happy to extend to the publications which keep us afloat with interesting content, and Scoble was really wrong to say we don’t link to blogs. He apologized. Scoble, apology accepted.
But that brings us to part two: editorial decisions. We’re primarily a news publication, and we have to make editorial decisions day in and day out. I wasn’t on duty when the Intel post in question was written, but it was hit by Paul Miller, one of our best and most professional writers. I expect Paul to take into account all available information when writing, and he did just that. I asked Paul if he’d reviewed the Scoble videos; he told me he had, and didn’t find anything that would have benefitted our editorial. In a private email this afternoon, Robert described his video as the “freaking scoop of the century and no one linked to it.” I asked Paul to review the videos a second time to search of any facts or content we missed that might have benefitted our editorial; he did so and reported back to me that he found none. A tour of the Intel plant isn’t the scoop of the century — at least not to us. That’s an editorial decision, and I trust Paul implicitly to make it.
But that brings up another interesting facet of new media: linking to sites as an aspect of editorial. I view linking as an extension of our editorial, and as such it falls into place with our editorial decision-making. When we link to a site, that’s a tacit affirmation of quality as deemed by Engadget’s editorial standards. Because people trust us not to lead them astray, we have a pretty transparent standing NSFW linking policy (i.e. we won’t directly link to a xxx pr0n site with a tech story, for instance). I recently contacted one blogger because I wanted to link to his site, but the page in question had some nudity left by a user. I let the admin know know of our quandary, he apparently didn’t even realize it was there, the offending material was taken down, and we linked through. Good stuff! On the other hand, sometimes many sites will write up the same news at the same time, tip us, and we have to pick which one to link. How do we pick? Usually it’s just where we found the news first (i.e. who tipped or blogged first), but sometimes we have to make an editorial decision and just pick the blog or publication that did the best job, added the most value to the conversation. It’s nothing personal, but a lot of sites definitely take it personally.
I won’t deny that Scoble links to us more than we link to him nowadays, that’s pretty much a fact. As you know, we’re a news publication. After he left Microsoft his blog stopped being populated with newsy content about a company we often cover, thus our outbound links to his blog slid (see all the dates of our Scoble refs?). Now he’s doing his thing at PodTech, which is great, but his current content by and large lands outside our realm of coverage. I don’t see G4 complaining that we’re not linking to them even though Engadget is mentioned on their site and on the air all the time. The simple fact is news and editorial cycles are not always bidirectional. Many, many sites link to news pubs like Engadget, but these news pubs exist to link to (and write about) the news, and pretty much nothing else. Its just a different content cycle, that’s the reality of the situation. (By the way, we linked to Scoble just a couple of weeks ago during CES.)
So, again, I’m cool with Robert. He’s my pal, and I’m looking forward to putting today’s pointless invective behind us; we all have our missteps. Yes, obviously we link to blogs, although sometimes we have to make the same kinds of choices about vouching for others’ editorial as we have to make with our own. We love and respect the blogosphere, and consider ourselves as much a part of it as the general news dialogue; it’s a symbiosis I’m especially proud we’re a part of, and one I don’t expect to change any time Pete and I have control over Engadget’s direction.
And you didn’t delete Scoble’s comment, as Gizmodo did (I assume based on what’s been written). So kudos to you for that!
Good work guys. Scoble has thick skin, and he’s always learning - just like the rest of us.
Rob
Comment by Rob La Gesse — Saturday, January 27, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
Great summary of the situation, I’m seriously sorry that this whole nonsense reared its ugly head on what was supposed to be your weekend off.
For the record, I definitely didn’t invent the via thing. When I started Gizmodo I basically ripped off Boing Boing’s style, which was a “Via” link for where they found something and a “Link” link for the source. I just changed the “Link” to “Read”, since people seemed to think that “Link” meant “Permalink”.
Comment by Peter Rojas — Saturday, January 27, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Hm, I never knew!
Comment by Ryan Block — Saturday, January 27, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
[...] Block, who is one of the main guys at Engadget, responds to yesterday’s rant with a long piece. Basically says that they went through an editorial process and found my video yesterday [...]
Pingback by Pissing off the blogosphere… « Scobleizer - Tech Geek Blogger — Sunday, January 28, 2007 @ 4:45 am
[...] said that Engadget ignored his video for Podtech, but as Engadget writer Ryan Block describes it in his long post on the topic, an Engadget staffer looked at Scoble’s video and didn’t see enough [...]
Pingback by Scoble’s Achilles heel is video » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work — Sunday, January 28, 2007 @ 8:40 am
[...] Block, who is one of the main guys at Engadget, responds to yesterday’s rant with a long piece. Basically says that they went through an editorial process and found my video yesterday [...]
Pingback by iTablet.mobi » Pissing off the blogosphere… — Sunday, January 28, 2007 @ 8:49 am
[...] to me to be what other bloggers think but don’t have the fortitude to say out loud. Now, the big boys are duking it out online. And we wonder if Scoble has, indeed, thrown himself under a bus. Is it [...]
Pingback by Sue’s Place - You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star. - Nietzsche » Getting linked to — Sunday, January 28, 2007 @ 8:55 am
[...] the response from Engadget. Engadget’s take and the methodology they used to not link to Scoble means that [...]
Pingback by Blogging About Blogs, The Bloggers That Blog Them, And Gaming » Webomatica — Sunday, January 28, 2007 @ 9:34 am
I really appreciate the argument that Scoble brings to the table. And I appreciate your personal attention to this matter.
There does appear to be a trend on the net of not providing credit where credit is do. It’s practically plagiarism if you write a story that you found somewhere else and do not give credit. I love the fact that you utilize a ‘via’ link and would like to know that it’s enforced whenever the news is broken on a blog or site.
Believe it or not, I have found some of my news mentioned on larger sites. I’m sure most of the time it’s coincidental - but I’m sure that I’ve been ’scooped’, too.
I think Scoble is simply being a very sensitive watchdog to ensure that once blogs ‘make it’, they don’t leave the bloggers behind that helped them ‘make it’. We will continue to support your site if you continue to support us.
Thanks!
Comment by Doug Karr — Sunday, January 28, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Um… Scoble just admitted that Intel paid him to shoot video!
Conflict of interest much?
Get paid to shoot “the scoop of the century,” then bitch about no one linking to it??
Robert’s a good guy, but he’s got a serious lack of disclosure problem here.
Comment by Aaron — Sunday, January 28, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
I knew and know very well it was “advertorial.” I’m not here to sling that kind of mud — or any kind of mud, really. As I said, I consider(ed) Scoble a pal, and despite his judgments on the newsworthiness of some other Engadget stories, I don’t really feel like getting into that whole end of the debate. Still, I agree, and I believe (and work) in a strict separation of advertising and editorial.
Comment by Ryan Block — Sunday, January 28, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
[...] Ryan Block [from Engadget] responds [...]
Pingback by arghyle » Blog Archive » Sunday Links — Sunday, January 28, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
[...] Block of Engadget has a clear answer: […] We’re primarily a news publication, and we have to make editorial decisions day in [...]
Pingback by The difference between bloggers and journalists at NevilleHobson.com — Monday, January 29, 2007 @ 6:52 am
If only PodTech would get ScobleShow a video editor
I’ve held off reviewing Podtech.net and more specifically ScobleShow, one of their flagship videoblogging shows (”A PodTech original”), primarily because I wanted to give Scoble a chance to get over there, situated and start cranking…
Trackback by Things That ... Make You Go Hmm — Monday, January 29, 2007 @ 9:01 am
Giz didn’t delete his comment. It simply hadn’t published yet.
Comment by Brian Lam — Monday, January 29, 2007 @ 9:30 am
[...] had an exclusive video regarding breaking news. The debate kept going on Scoble’s blog, and all over the [...]
Pingback by Dan Blank: Publishing, Innovation and the Web » Blog Archive » Can Bloggers Compete with Established News Sources? — Monday, January 29, 2007 @ 11:21 am
[...] post gets a lot of attention and angers/offends a number of people. Many of those not affected [...]
Pingback by arghyle » Blog Archive » Scoble’s Explosion: Play by Play — Monday, January 29, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
[...] named Engadget for ignoring him in spite of posting what he thought were ground-breaking stories. Engadget’s Ryan Block responded by laying down their editorial policy and concluded that ultimately, it boiled down to if they [...]
Pingback by Tips to Request Links from Top Bloggers at Nerve Endings Firing Away — Monday, January 29, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Ryan, can you ask Paul where he found the story first?
Comment by John Cass — Tuesday, January 30, 2007 @ 9:15 am
Should You Declare Your Story Source?
Is Robert Scoble right to complain that when his blog gets the scoop on a news item, other bloggers and MSM should link or reference his posting? Well, if the bloggers and the journalists got their story from Robert Scroble’s
Trackback by PR Communications — Tuesday, January 30, 2007 @ 9:45 am
Yes, he did, I thought I made that pretty clear. We link where we find things. If Robert had tipped us on the news we’d have given him a via link… but we found it manually at the NYT, and so the NYT got the credit.
Comment by Ryan Block — Tuesday, January 30, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Okay thanks Ryan.
Comment by John Cass — Tuesday, January 30, 2007 @ 11:16 am
No worries!
Comment by Ryan Block — Tuesday, January 30, 2007 @ 11:33 am
[...] First, Scoble was saying something against the Engadget just for a rejected link request. Then an Engadget guy answered back [...]
Pingback by Tech Big Men Hitting Each Other Big Names » SELaplana — Tuesday, January 30, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Thanks Ryan. We do the same over at Digital Media Thoughts, and we get quite a bit of our content from Engadget. Always nice to see our name up in lights on Engadget from time to time.
It’s a small blogging world, no reason we all shouldn’t give props where props are due.
Comment by Jeremy Charette — Tuesday, March 27, 2007 @ 11:26 am
[...] Mac crashed, Scoble rants — par for the course. (Earlier this year he had it out for me, too, but cooler heads prevailed.) But he did bring up a lot of interesting points, some sound, some [...]
Pingback by Scoble vs. Apple » Ryan Block — Saturday, November 17, 2007 @ 7:30 pm