Hey, there! Log in / Register

Globe writes story about YouTube video, doesn't link to it

By adamg on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 8:30am

Oh, wait, that's not news, they never do that. Today, the Globe runs a story headlined Video spurs inquiry into Salem officer.

Here is an example of a newspaper not just linking to that video, but actually embedding it.

Topics: 
Media
Free tagging: 
Boston Globe


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

By amusings on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 9:27am.

i first saw it here the other day.
http://www.thesaleminsider.com/2008/10/19/video-su...

i love when newspapers don't link to things. it cracks me up. Oh! the web is this wonderfully interactive place! let's pretend it isn't!

i wonder what the motivation for NOT linking is. Fear of dead/broken links later on?

up
Voting closed 0

By adamg on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 9:57am.

He did put the title of the video right in the lead, so at least it wouldn't be too hard to find.

But the Globe does know how to link to video from print. Right in the features section is a link to a video as a teaser with a story. Oh, right, it's a Globe video. But if the paper's worried about losing ad revenue or something, sheesh, they could embed the video right on one of their pages and point to that.

up
Voting closed 0

By Neal on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 10:31am.

Is now the time to tell you that there's no link to the crossing guard story cited in the entry above this one?

up
Voting closed 0

By adamg on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 10:34am.

That was a typo on my part. Fixed, so the link now actually works.

up
Voting closed 0

By adamg on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 10:53am.

The story now starts with an NECN video clip about the video, so you can watch a video with a smaller version of the original video inside. Somebody with more time than I have might be tempted to video the video about the video and then post that.

up
Voting closed 0

By Brett on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 11:29am.

Somebody with more time than I have might be tempted to video the video about the video and then post that.

Steve Garfield, where are you when we need you.

up
Voting closed 0

By zbert on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 12:26pm.

When i first found that story, on the Globe online, there WAS a big YouTube window at the top, between the headline and the first paragraph of the story. I watched the video. I reloaded the page. The video was gone... never to be seen again...

damn interns, not following corporate standards, I guess.

weirdness.

up
Voting closed 0

By amusings on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 12:48pm.

because youtube is not a "content partner" with the globe the way NECN is, they wouldn't link to it or embed the video. The way these things work in the media, or the way i understand them, you have your content partners/providers and THAT is who you get your content from.

Once the story was up on NECN, that's when it should be linked (with the NECN commercial coming at the beginning and all kinds of money-generating things attached).

up
Voting closed 0

By zbert on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 2:52pm.

"All kinds of money-generating things"

you forgot to add "in their new media dreams" cuz there's really no apparent path from any NECN or other video, to actual money. it's all make-believe but without the VC backing.

Even as an old school newspaper person who loves the medium, it's kind of fun to watch the Globe thrash about as it dies.

UPDATE @ 2:49pm:
A link is back... not inline in the story, but near the place the story is linked from the Globe's home page, making it impossible to find if you're sent straight to the story... and with a warning about language:

* Watch the YouTube video (Warning: Explicit language)

I'm guessing there was a lot of chin-and-beard-stroking going on in the newsroom, over the issue of "Explicit language" what with the Globe being the guardian of all things Proper and all that, and this was the compromise to the impetuous News 2.0 crowd.

up
Voting closed 0

By amusings on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 7:06pm.

about that make pretend money thing. i work in a media related business and yeah. i think there is a lot of pretend money going around.

and ... i love the chin and beard stroking visual with "tut tuts" and "oh should we?" and "heavens! what if we offend someone!" going on ...

up
Voting closed 0

By stevegarfield on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 3:11pm.

Bad Salem Cop

up
Voting closed 0

By Anonymous on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 6:46pm.

Thanks Steve.

What do you know about the law in Massachusetts about video/audio recording in public?

First, there is a law on the books that prohibits one party from recording another party (phone, conference room, anywhere really) without consent. When one is operating a video camera, one is audio recording too.

There was a case in Greenfield MA where the police confiscated a videographers camera in a private parking lot. The videographer was taping the police intervention in a an unlawful assembly, a protest of the Iraq war. The protesters were told to leave the shopping mall's parking lot by by the police on authority of the owner. The videographer was not a protester yet she was charged with recording (audio) without the consent of thse present, her equipment was confiscated and she was arrested. Eventually her equipment was returned. I don't know the finding in the case but the DA did try to prosecute.

We are all journalists when we make a journal of events. We don't need a license. Free speech provides us all with this right.

Here's my question. Why can news crews record audio as well as video without consent but police crackdown on individuals who record audio and video of their police work?

I'm going to link to this thread on Dan Kennedy's page too.

up
Voting closed 0

By zbert on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 11:04pm.

Dear Anonymous:

A videographer (or any other person) can be kicked off private property by the owner or anyone the owner delegates authority to, at any time. I don't know that case, so I have to guess that the real crime was "trespass"

In MA it is in fact illegal to record a person without their *knowledge* (this is not the same as "consent")... i find it hard to believe that anyone could see a video camera and not know they were being recorded... maybe the DA wanted to prove a point and thought s/he could convice a judge or jury otherwise. That sounds like the typical MA waste of time to me.

up
Voting closed 0

By stevegarfield on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 3:15pm.

They refer to the video as 'amateur video' posted to YouTube.

They could at least provide credit to the YouTube user, sexiimamacita617

:-)

If I saw one of my videos posted to NECN without a credit, I wouldn't be happy.

Rick Sanchez on CNN credits all the twitter user names that he quotes no matter how crazy made up they are.

What I'd like to hear is, "This YouTube video posted by user sexii mamacita 617..."

up
Voting closed 0