Comments on: CNN Links

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:32:17 +0000

I don’t doubt that extra clicks is part of the mix, as well as a need to show they are ready for “Web 2.0,” whatever they think that means.

By: hipparchia

hipparchia — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:36:40 +0000

It would be nice if the traditional media figured out that all they need to do is their job – provide accurate reporting of the facts, and label the opinions as opinions and not news.

word.

i figured their linking to blogs just meant that they were looking for more ways to feed advertising to captive eyeballs, rather than making a bid for credibility.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:08:14 +0000

This looks a good deal more like CNN trying to bump up their credibility, than any benefit to a blogger, unless you have advertising. I tend to look for the people that actually do the reporting, rather than the people mirroring it, which is why I acknowledge the AP a lot, and don’t mention the site carrying the report.

It would be nice if the traditional media figured out that all they need to do is their job – provide accurate reporting of the facts, and label the opinions as opinions and not news.

By: hipparchia

hipparchia — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:22:05 +0000

😈

By: hipparchia

hipparchia — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:21:47 +0000

do you care?

By: Steve Bates

Steve Bates — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:07:11 +0000

Agreed, wholeheartedly. I don’t even track or even count inbound links. Yes, I know that’s almost heresy by conventional blogger standards, but it’s a decision I made long ago, and I’ve yet to see a good reason to modify my policy. Inbound links are nice, but I blog for my own reasons.

I suppose your discovery means I may have been linked by CNN, when I have linked articles there. Woo-hoo… ask me if I care.