Net.Mentor places cookies on your computer to improve your overall web experience. Click here to find out more about these cookies.

Our Twitter


Interesting article from our music-specialist accountancy clients. Even though #Glastonbury has sold out, UK... http://t.co/cWkVx8OR
08 October 2012
RT @nwn_bs: Festifail - even though #Glastonbury has sold out, UK #festivals facing tough times and need good management....
08 October 2012
Interesting opinion piece from Mark O'Neil on alternative business funding & invoice finance on the NWN Blue... http://t.co/78qhjk6J
08 October 2012




Follow us


Bookmark and Share

"Links r us" at the BBC

  • Currently 2.54471544715
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Click a star to add your rating of this article

The BBC has revealed new guidelines and some challenging targets for its reporters when using hyperlinks in BBC web content.

It's scary to think that the BBC's web content is already generating 10 million - yes this is not a typo - outbound links every month from its website and is now aiming to double that by 2013.

20 million outbound links which, if the BBC is doing its job as a public service organisation, will lead visitors to further pages of useful web content.  Now, while there are disclaimers throughout the Beeb's website about the organisation not being responsible for the credibility and validity of external links, there is still a massive filtering process being undertaken as the content writers seek to substantiate the news and information.

In my view, this is a positive rather than a negative.  Like Wikipedia, much of it will be subjective, with the responsibility being placed in the hands of the content writer or page editors.  However, at the same time as releasing the link targets, the BBC has also included new guidelines regarding the type of links used by BBC journalists in their web articles, particularly in relation to science subjects.

Instead of providing a hyperlink to an academic journal, or scientific organisation's homepage, the link must be directly to the original content the journalist has sourced for their own article.  While this doesn't directly influence the validity of the scientific content itself, it does place greater responsibility on journalists to consider 'source crediblity' - an theme I find myself constantly reminding my CIPR Advanced Certificate students to consider when looking at PR theories, models and commentary.

The fact that all reporters, not just the science specialists, will now have to show the source(s) on which they are basing their editorial, might require them to think a little harder and read a little deeper before crafting a news story.  And that has to be good for both science and journalism.

Published 11th October, 2010

Add comment