I'll keep this short, so as not to interrupt the flow of Sunday Kos.
The substance of what Frank Rich has to say in today's NYT is being covered elsewhere. We'll be talking about that all day, no doubt.
But here's the thing I want to point out: Frank Rich is one of just a very few mainstream media columnists that have come to adopt the linking standards of bloggers, and I appreciate that deeply.
When traditional print newspapers went on line some [hummina-hummina] years ago, someone must have told them that online media use links, so they should use some, too. But have you ever stopped to take a look at the difference between the ways the traditional media who have moved online use links, versus the way we do?
Bloggers use links to give readers the opportunity to view their source material. When a blogger makes an assertion, you can typically check the validity of that assertion by following links to that blogger's source, and decide for yourself whether it's been properly analyzed.
When traditional media use links, they tend to point to that media outlet's collection of archived articles on the proper noun they've attached the link to.
So when a blogger says, "President Bush today announced his intention to invade Liechtenstein," that blogger would tend to attach the link to something like "announced his intention," and have it point to a newspaper article or White House press release containing a quote from Bush, saying, "I intend to invade Liechtenstein."
When a newspaper says, "President Bush today announced his intention to invade Liechtenstein," the links are on "President Bush," and "Liechtenstein." And they link to archived articles about President Bush and Liechtenstein, in every other context in which that paper has written about those subjects.
Useless.
Unless, of course, you don't know who President Bush is, or more plausibly, what Liechtenstein is. In which case the links are perfect.
But for the rest of the reading world, it's not only useless, but a lingering sign of the traditional media's continuing inability or unwillingness to acknowledge and adopt a superior system developed outside of their auspices.
Seriously. Which system better informs a readership? Links to archives that in all likelihood have nothing whatsoever to do with the current story? Or links to source material that can put you in the frame of mind of the reporter?
Frank Rich and others like him know the answer to that, and I thank them for having the courage (if that's really what it takes these days to decide to offer your customers a better product) to come over into the light.