Do Scoops Matter? Does Attribution?

Chris Pirillo, a couple of days ago lamented that in the blogosphere, scoops no longer matter. A day earlier, as Chris mentioned, Scoble lamented the devious power of blog networks that take content from original thinkers like him and Chris without attribution then amplify the pilfered content by linking back-and-forth with friends and business allies to create the illusion of authority where none exists.

I've been trying to digest what I think about these related issues.  At the core are big issues like integrity and defining this dynamic thing we call the blogosphere. Into this mulling, came a Doc Searls comment objecting to my post, which in turn objected to Technorati calling its new slider an authority measure. I argued that authority and ranking were not synonymous. "Blogs are different than newspapers," Doc retorted.

Now, there is no blogger I respect more than Doc.  As Scoble says: "If Doc said it, it must be true." Somehow, Doc's comments brought me back not only to Chris and Robert but to Journalism School where I was taught that 3/4s of the word "NEWS" is "New" and you can bet your "S" that news matters. The purpose of my life as a daily reporter was to get items into our newspaper edition earlier than the competing papers.  Scoops mattered. But I was also taught the one thing more important than getting it first was getting it right.  Accuracy mattered.  And to be accurate I had to attribute what I wrote, not to myself but to someone who was a recognized authority. When it came down to deadline we sometimes made extremely close calls between getting it first r right and nearly always opted to make sure we were right.

Am I scattered, or does this make some sense.  Do you see how these three issues braid together? To me, each has to do with this new blogging medium and the rules of how we conduct themselves.

I guess I'm different than Doc. I look to the noble dying beast of traditional journalism for many answers applicable to blogging and what is or should be. I'm different also from Chris in that getting a scoop as a journalist was always neat, but I was a more reflective reporter than that.  I preferred to come out with an indepth account a few days later. I'm still like that as a blogger. While I share Robert's concerns about any attempts to game blogging, I link most to the people I read most and I take the liberty of trusting them to use trusted sources because that's what a trusted network is about, isn't it?

There are all sorts of blurry lines here  There a difference between not getting credit for a scoop and being plagiarized.  There's a difference between linking to friends and setting up Ponsi-like schemes to raise your Google juice. As bloggers we are committed to sharing as much as we possibly can with others yet we all feel ripped off when we don't get credit.

So who should draw the lines from accepted practice and smarminess? I haven't a clue. I have no desire to spend my day clicking from one place to another and another to find to original source.  If you want to show the whole tree from which news has flowed on the blogosphere, go right ahead, but I'll find all that attribution boring.  I just want to know that my source is making reasonable effort to be accurate.

Doc is right as usual.  Blogs are different from newspapers.  But in many ways they are also similar.  And it seems to me that this is a good thing. Both media are attempting to find the truth and publish it.  Both media are filled with opinion and agendas.  The delicacy is keeping factual reporting and op ed opining apart from each other. Doc, people need to earn authority by being accurate, valuable, insightful, compelling, provocative, all attributes I would give to you. But just having a lot of clicks and links does not an authority make, at least from where I sit.

So what's my point? I'm not sure.  These are very complex issues and we are all of us pioneers in a new world-changing way of communicating. I think Chris and Robert are more upset about being plagiarized than they are about scoops and amplifying networks, but I'm probably wrong.

Doc, I always thought that the biggest difference between newspapers and the blogosphere was that blogosphere aggregated the collective wisdom of conversation participants. In short, the longer the conversation went on, the smarter it got. Lately I haven't been so sure.

This whole thing, this social media and Web 2.0 is all so new and moving so fast.  The answer to issues we struggle with today, will become, well, self-evident tomorrow.

Comments

[/pd]

not sure where this post is leading too..

my 5 cents worth..

1) MSM are cut throat. They will always want to cut information the way they see it.
2) bloggers are cut throat. they will always want to be the "a-list" person and the first to cut info...
3) bad karma: humanity still needs to learn to be straight without motivated by monetary value (alone !!)
4) good Karma : There are still are lot of good people out there that need to be discovered - the "magic middle" --yes theres a lot of magic middle out there .. 5) The Magic middle is like the magic portion -where humanity will be clustered together to either revolt vigriously againts "wrong" or condolidate tightly when "right"

[Shel Israel]

pd

I can't get my Typepad to keep defaulting on Draft. I had no idea that I had published this when I saved it. I just published the whole piece. It still may not make sense. It's a difficult one to express what I want to say.

[Niall Cook]

Shel,

I completely agree about attribution. I have noticed an increase in the number of established bloggers clearly choosing not to declare their sources, when I know the news has broken somewhere else first.

One can't help but wonder if they are trying to ensure the reverse link chain stops at them, to claim the credit.

With Technorati's move to define authority in terms of links (not something I agree with, by the way), proper attribution is more important than ever.

[Doc Searls]

Thanks, Shel, for a good and thoughtful post. I'll reply at more length on my blog later when I'm not making breakfast and stuff.

Meanwhile, I'll just ask folks to do what I found myself unable to do when Technorati asked me to do it: come up with a better word than authority for what that slider does. If it's not authority, what is it? Linkage? Mojo?

I dunno. I do know that the feature is useful.

[/pd]

"populality" vs "authority" ??

shel : I agree, its difficult to express - and yes we (all) are not sure where we are going.. its a little bit like columbus, who set sail not know where or what he will find, but certainly felt that he would find something rich and plentiful !! :)-

[Jack Krupansky]

The amazing thing with this "Authority" slider issue is the lengths that people are willing to go to *avoid* simply calling link counts "Popularity". Pur another way, although technically they are simply link counts, the *goal* of using them is to measure or approximate a measure of popularity. But, they can't bring themselves to just come out and say it.

One last thing on attribution... is it acceptable to say "Numerous sources report that ..." or "Numerous bloggers report that ..." to simply be clear that you're not trying to "break" the story that you are simply retelling it?

Personally, I try to link to what I *believe* is the ultimate source, but sometimes it's simply not possible in a short amount of time to find "the" source.

Also, sometimes I'd *prefer* to link to a linker since maybe *they* are the ones that have done the dogwork to find the source and I'm simply piggy-backing on their work anyway.

Besides, I find that frequently each linker adds a little bit of content/value that is itself a "story" beyond the original "story".

-- Jack Krupansky

[Eric Eggertson]

I have to admit I buy into the image that some writers project that most of the things they write are thing they've personally uncovered, unless otherwise noted.

For some folks, who are constantly at the centre of breaking events, it's no doubt true. For others, it's a matter of failure to acknowledge their sources.

Would I have less respect for them if they always linked to the original source. Nope.

Will I lose respect for them when someone takes the time to show how they are repeatedly screwing others? Yup.

[Shel Israel]

Doc,

You are right. The slider is indeed useful. I don't think "popularity" quite works either, because we sometimes all link to something like The Lincoln Fry blog because we all just hate it. So it gets links, but s neither popular, nor does it have authority.