"Called Out" Comment

by Lewis DVorkin and Forbes, Inc.

This chapter is a free excerpt from The Forbes Model For Journalism In The Digital Age.

Complete 10-second survey to read full article!
 @Rob King ESPN_RobKing
"Glass half-full on journalism? I'm in! Inside Forbes"
Rich says:
HTML and "the hyperlink" changed everything. With that, suddenly an author ("journalist" or otherwise) can elegantly reference as many other sources and points of view as they care to. So rather than trying to reference some other source or point of view in a rehashed encapsulation (let alone ten or twenty of them), the author can just send the reader directly to the original source, where the source's author can speak for his or herself. What this winds up meaning is that it's never been easier to "cite your source." Of course, there's still a massive need to settle the basic question of "Is this accurate?". This is why good editors and publishers whose reputations are on the line as the promoters of the content will always be highly valuable. With it being so easy to encounter so much content, the value of TRUTH goes up exponentially. Alas, within a given piece, all of the information can be accurate, but still suffer from bias of omission (see also, The New York Times). Whether or not an author chooses to address "all sides" of an issue becomes an question of style, intent, and in many cases, limitations of the reader's time. One might be perfectly able of writing 5000 words on some subject, but knowing that the reader will tune out at 1500 (or 500!), it may be pointless. In the end, with the help of good publishing and content navigation tools, readers will sort it all out, with the best content speaking for itself.
To which I responded:
Dean, Your last paragraph says it all. When content creators and news consumers have access to the same tools, the best content will be found and shared in ways that benefit all.
Price: $4.95 Add to Cart
  • Lifetime guarantee
  • 100% refund
  • Free updates