Comments on: Getting links with made-up content: clever marketing or unethical publishing?

By: Laura Oliver

Laura Oliver — Fri, 30 May 2008 08:56:47 +0000

Hi Lyndoman, Nice to hear from you.
I don’t think I sidestepped the ethics of that point, it’s alarming. You were right to highlight it, and it’s another strand feeding into the churnalism/standards debate.

The tips you gave for generating links were really interesting, and clearly work. But, as I said, I would like to have seen them applied to factual content to see what these optimisation techniques can do without changing the facts.

While I know you weren’t advising other publishers to take this exact course of action, I wonder if money.co.uk’s decision to let the satire be carried out on their site is an example that other sites, trying to establish themselves online, might be tempted to follow – minus the follow-ups you’ve posted and discussion we’re having here.

By: Bob Anan

Bob Anan — Fri, 30 May 2008 08:54:46 +0000

Get real Lyndoman. Of course the hacks who copied the story are just as culpable. Puff and untruths may get into print but most journalists don’t deliberately go out to make sure that happens. Yes, the story strains credibility near the end, but it’s weak satire that’s pretty much believable – the story is not Onion-type stuff.

By: Lyndoman

Lyndoman — Thu, 29 May 2008 17:01:32 +0000

Interesting how you sidestepped the ethics of the journalists who republished it without check the most basic facts. I don’t know what they teach you guys at Journo school but you should really check your facts when trawling digg for stories.

The tale was made as a satirical joke which people took seriously. Get off your high horse and get yourself a sense of humour.

I’m sure you’ve never published untruths or puffed up a story. You’re a journalist after all