Election days are — next to the days after Thanksgiving and Christmas — the worst days of journalism on the calendar. They are “yeah, we know” days. People shop. People vote. Tell me something I don’t know. Please. This is the journalism of filling space and time. We have to print an edition or fill airtime and this is what’s happening today and you’re going to come to us anyway so we’re going to tell you about it even if we have nothing — nothing — new and informative to say.
The journalism of links, on the other hand, would dictate that it’s not worth using resources to tell people what they already know because no one will pass that on and passing on is the new distribution chain for news. (People won’t just come to you anyway anymore.)
I’m not suggesting that news judgment should be determined just by what is passed around. We know how silly the most-emailed lists are; they’re the wacky stories, water-cooler journalism. Instead, I’m suggesting that if you can’t imagine anyone linking to your coverage — if you can’t imagine anyone saying “this was new,” “this is good,” “this was valuable,” “go here for more,” “I didn’t know this,” or “you should know this” — then chances are, it’s not worth saying and in the link economy it won’t get audience, and so it’s not worth making.
In that link economy — in the Googleverse — you stand out above the level playing field by creating something uniquely useful, informative, compelling, or valuable. As other news organizations cut back, they will more and more point to good work done elsewhere. So another way to ask this question is, “have I contributed something to the press-sphere (and will I get attention as a result)?” For elsewhere in the sphere, others are doing what they do best and linking to the rest.
At the Telegraph, online editor Marcus Warren just told PaidContent: “We are doing what we do best, main content, but also linking to the rest, as Jeff Jarvis would put it.” Or as Marcus Huendgen just said in Der Westen, “Do the fucking links.” Yes, I’m gratified at the spread of that meme. It’s not just advice. It’s a recognition of the new architecture of news and media.
A few years ago, the Associated Press did a lot of research among young people as it prepared to create a news product for them. One meme they heard again and again: “Don’t tell us what we already know.” Don’t waste their time — and your dwindling resources.
So I come to you today over-informed about how many people are standing in a random line or about a random machine that broke down and got fixed — because that’s where the reporter was standing and she had nothing else to tell me. Don’t bother.
Hi all
Now that we are nearly at the end of the line for this election story…check out this link for more news….
http://www.globalradionews.com/public/mapforwardPlanning.asp
It’s a free resource for all your forward planning – what’s more, you can add links so it’ll become an archive of news coverage
[...] Jeff Jarvis’s post reminded of how much I used to hate being a staff writer on election day — particularly big, national elections (Democratic mayoral primaries in the city of Pittsburgh were the lone exception to this rule, and even those days kind of dragged). This is the second presidential election in my journalism career where I have not been a staff writer for a daily newspaper, and a god reminder of why I don’t want to ever be a staff writer for a newspaper again. [...]
Jeff,
I’m certainly sick of all the “people courageously go to the polls story.” However, do you think there’s anything to be gained by the collective reporting of citizen journalists on twitter, facebook, blogs, etc.? Is it a situation like the California earthquake, where the immediate self-reporting can prove more insightful than what traditional press can report? I feel that social media provides enough individual reports to prove something insightful, at least.
I’m also glad I’m not working for a daily. Election coverage, for the most part is like doing man on the street interviews when something big happens. Most have no idea or are not interested. Today’s Election Day coverage, with record numbers of people going to the polls, accusations of fraud and just the historic nature of it, might be a bit different. And certainly, Ethan, citizen journalists can have a bigger impact today than usual suspects.
I write about what I feel like writing about. That displeases some superannuated journo-shill, he can snort dehydrated prickly pears.
Jarvis, you want to play persnickity snot, I’m going to show you how to play persnickity snot.
[...] resisted the incredible urge to add my voice to the post-election noise for most of yesterday and today, but my perusal of InformationWeek has forced my hand. Mitch Wagner [...]
[...] wie Präsidentschaftswahlen sind, so meint Jeff Jarvis, gehörten zu den schlimmsten Tagen – aus Sicht eines Journalisten: “Election days are [...]
This is your only post about the election this week?
You really are something. Post after post after post about Hillary in the spring until she finally dropped out. Post after post after post about how terrible Obama and his supporters were (are?). Post after post after post about how unfair it all was during the primary. You stopped any dialogue on the election when Hillary dropped out. Ran away from the subject.
Now, after an election that even the most hard core, cynical Democrat politicos and Republican opponents of the Presiden-elect found noteworthy, you have nothing to say.
Your silence on this says more about you than anything you write.
Perhaps you should stay in Dubai.
So in your view there is no public demand for a keepsake publication of a major historical event. Weren’t there lines around the block at some newspapers to buy their reprints of the sold-out first run edition?
[...] but the new kids understand what works and what doesn’t for print and digital media. “Don’t tell us what we already know” is the impression I often get when trying to explain what the strengths and weaknesses are of each [...]
[...] no longer have the luxury of wasting resources on non-stories — on “the journalism of filling space and time,” as Jeff Jarvis put it. They no longer have the luxury, in an information-overload world, of [...]
[...] no longer have the luxury of wasting resources on non-stories — on “the journalism of filling space and time,” as Jeff Jarvis put it. They no longer have the luxury, in an information-overload world, of [...]
[...] no longer have the luxury of wasting resources on non-stories — on “the journalism of filling space and time,” as Jeff Jarvis put it. They no longer have the luxury, in an information-overload world, of [...]
[...] a Jeff Jarvis citado por Clay Shirky: If you can’t imagine anyone linking to what you’re about to [...]
[...] e comente o post original The journalism of filling space and time « BuzzMachine, via José [...]
[...] En el repaso matutino a los blogs mediante mi Google Reader, he encontrado esta idea genial de Jeff Jarvis en el blog de José Luis Orihuela: “Si no imaginas quien podría enlazarlo, no lo [...]
[...] a Jeff Jarvis citado por Clay Shirky: If you can’t imagine anyone linking to what you’re about to [...]
[...] no longer have the luxury of wasting resources on non-stories — on “the journalism of filling space and time,” as Jeff Jarvis put it. They no longer have the luxury, in an information-overload world, of [...]
[...] no longer have the luxury of wasting resources on non-stories — on “the journalism of filling space and time,” as Jeff Jarvis put it. They no longer have the luxury, in an information-overload world, of [...]
[...] no longer have the luxury of wasting resources on non-stories — on “the journalism of filling space and time,” as Jeff Jarvis put it. They no longer have the luxury, in an information-overload world, of [...]