Comments on: Exclusive! The breaking news problem

By: The Guv

The Guv — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:07:15 +0000

Exclusives are the methamphetemine of the world of journalism. They’re addictive, dangerous, and after a while they make people look ugly. Pretty much nobody cares who got there first any more, and linking to the original story happens only with the best or most exclusive stories.
There is a lesson here - instead of concentrating on tiny details and puffing up weak tidbits, journalists should concentrate on truly original in-depth material … which can’t be easily digested and spat out by a linked blog post. This type of in-depth or investigative stuff is going to drive traffic in the future, rather than one-hit single-strand wonders. Easier said than done.

By: Svetlana Gladkova

Svetlana Gladkova — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:36:35 +0000

Great post Mathew. We really need to stop from time to time and contemplate what exactly we get as scoop and what news we receive embargoed. We often just think that it is something definitely worth coverage if embargoed. And dozens of blogs publish similar reviews 1 minute after the embargo is lifted. And it is often ridiculous how we hunt for the news and break stories: I remember a few months ago a startup complained that an embargoed story we received from them was broken by the WSJ. Is it something such a publication would do?

By: Mathew

Mathew — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:02:33 +0000

I agree, Steve. And like I said, it still pays to be first, and probably always will. But I hope that more and more bloggers will also look for value elsewhere and reward it with the currency of their links.

By: Steve Spalding

Steve Spalding — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:58:07 +0000

Don’t forget crowdsourced social news sites leveraging the social graph Matt.

Good point though.

Even with the pile on affect, there is still gold to be head for first movers. Who do you think gets linked to for getting the scoop? Predominantly it’s the person who first got the story.