I have disagreed with Microsoft’s Robert Scoble in the past. In particular, I found his defence of his employer in the MSN Space China debacle to be unreasoning and his change of heart unconvincing. (Though I think his later offer of blogging space to Michael Anti was awfully decent.)
But now, irritated by what he considers irresponsible and unsupported reporting regarding the Vista delay, he made a perfectly reasonable call for bloggers not to link to unsupported posts, for which he was repeatedly attacked, by, I presume, people who perhaps are not fond of Microsoft. Otherwise, I can’t figure out the reason for the tone of their disagreement. It’s sort of weirdly vicious.
I pointed out, however, that his antique desire for three sources in an article is something he is unlikely to find anywhere anymore. I said, “the pressure to fill up inches/minutes is the order of the day. As ‘credible’ news organizations continue to consolidate, the bottom line (I mean profit at any cost) will contine to dominate. This is not just happening with the big guys. When a newspaper wants its reporters to write up to 5 articles a day? You can rest assured there will not be a single article with three sources.”
One of the things about blogging I have grown to dislike is that although “digests” seem to me to be a nice begining, but only a beginging, few bloggers have moved beyond it. What about getting out and interviewing people, seeing things with your own eyes and, yes, finding multiple sources? It seems like it would be the next logical step.
I don’t see anything wrong with refusing to link to bloggers, journalists or blogging journalists (or journalizing bloggers) who don’t engage in credibility-enhancing practices. I just think there won’t be as much to link to as he hopes.