The difficulties of moving a newspaper online

By Felix Salmon
May 21, 2009

The bloggiest, and possibly the most-read, part of the WSJ’s “Heard on the Street” page is its short-take “Overheard” section. (People are much more likely to read short things than long things, in general.) Today, it has some juicy gossip about ongoing negotiations between Microsoft and Yahoo — Microsoft still wants Yahoo’s search engine (despite reportedly planning to unveil its own new search engine next week), but “the Yahoos are steamed that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer keeps returning to areas they thought the two camps had already agreed on”.

Take all that as you will — but if you’re a business or technology blogger, don’t link to it, because you can’t link to it. It’s just sitting there in the middle of a dynamically-updated page, and as of tomorrow it’ll be gone forever: as far as I can tell, the “Overheard” archives simply don’t exist.

Why not? I can think of three possible reasons, ranging from cock-up to conspiracy:

  1. “Overheard” was designed primarily as a print product, the web presence was an afterthought, in the rush to launch no one got around to building an Overheard archive or constructing permalinks for it, and since then the webby people have moved on to other things.
  2. “Overheard” is short, and the WSJ still has a mindset that importance is proportional to length; therefore, short items are simply not important enough to archive.
  3. “Overheard” is the closest thing to a gossip column that the WSJ has, and the editors don’t want gossip sullying their venerable archives.

I suspect that the real reasons are more cock-up than conspiracy, but that’s really no excuse. Journalists care about where and how their work is presented on the paper; they tend not to care nearly as much about where and how it’s presented online, where they have an order of magnitude more readers. That’s going to have to change, but it’ll be a very slow process.

Comments
5 comments so far

Another conspiracy reason: the WSJ does not _want_ links to the gossip page. Links to long articles bring traffic, that´s good. But short comments can be shown almost entirely in a different site, so readers would not click through. Hence, they do not get any benefit from linking.

Bonara

Posted by Bonara H. Runner | Report as abusive

Felix, I think you are missing the point of Overheard’s lack of an archive. The items are so speculative that they don’t necessarily warrant an archive.

Posted by Biz Reporter | Report as abusive

Too long, didn’t read.

Just joking. Good post as always, Felix.

Posted by Comment Poster | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/