A few thoughts on the art of linking

Adding links to my weekly Pioneer Press column -- an opportunity missed by the online version of the Pioneer Press -- I remember a piece I’d read on the Kool Aid Report. Learned Foot (as has Bogus Gold) notes a key difference between newspapers and blogs.

In this post, I discussed the art of creative linking in a blog post. Yesterday, in an article in Editor & Publisher, . . . The piece featured a quote revisiting one of Coleman's most, uh, talked about columns, that lends itself perfectly to artful linking. First, here's the excerpt unadorned:

In that same piece, Coleman called the bloggers everything from "rottweilers in sheep's clothing" to "reliable partisan hacks." He claimed that the site and others like it "are dominated by the right and are only interested in being a megaphone without oversight, disclosure of conflicts of interest, or professional standards," adding that the blog was "the biggest link in a daisy chain of right-wing blogs that is assaulting mainstream media."

And now that same excerpt with value added:

In that same piece, Coleman called the bloggers everything from "rottweilers in sheep's clothing" to "reliable partisan hacks." He claimed that the site and others like it "are dominated by the right and are only interested in being a megaphone without oversight, disclosure of conflicts of interest, or professional standards," adding that the blog was "the biggest link in a daisy chain of right-wing blogs that is assaulting mainstream media."

Newspapers can't do this, which is why they will eventually die.

While linking is a valuable tool that blogs have, it’s not a substitute for good informative writing, and ultimately that’s why people will read what someone has written, whether it appears in a blog or a “dead tree” media.
What we, and I include myself in that we, may be losing sight of in the “Battle of the Blogs v. the MSM” is that media is but the delivery system for information. The focus still must be on what is said.

Learned Foot’s “value added” paragraph has 12 references. Frankly, I haven’t -- even out of curiosity -- checked them all out. When I read someone, especially an opinion piece, I’m looking for their expertise to provide me with a perspective on an issue that I have not or might not come up with on my own. If it moves me to further research, then links are certainly helpful, but they are not a substitute for thought or concise writing on the part of an author.

Technology is great. It’s great to have Shakespeare Online, but Ol’ Bill wouldn’t have the links that he has if he hadn't turned a fine phrase or two and was perhaps the world’s greatest creators of clichés.

Point is, it’s the thought and writing, not the technology, that counts -- which opens a topic for another post.