6 Responses

1. Alison Gow

   December 1st, 2008 at 1:27 am

   1

   Since we only found out about the site thanks to your top training session, Andy, maybe we should have given you a joint byline
   The site was an ace tip and I think it will also really drive the importance of linking for our newsroom team (after all, the more people who know about whatdotheyknow.com, the more potential stories we will hopefully start to find on it!)

2. digidickinson

   December 1st, 2008 at 6:15 am

   2

   Strictly behind the scenes me. What's great is that this shows the value of a journalist in the process. Picking through the hundreds of requests and seeing the story not just the raw data and information. Then taking the time to make it all stack up. It's a great job.

3. Paul

   December 1st, 2008 at 10:33 am

   3

   I'm amazed that this is newsworthy. Surely every single journalist worth their salt checks sites like whatdotheyknow.com. I've certainly got several page leads from it.

4. Liverpool Daily Post scores scoop with reader’s FOI request | Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog

   December 1st, 2008 at 3:15 pm

   4

   [...] (Thanks to Andy Dickinson for telling us about this) [...]

5. David

   December 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 am

   5

   In reply to Paul's comment, I would argue that the assumption that every journalist worth their salt should be checking sites such as whatdotheyknow.com is on one level spot on, but on another level, wrong.

   I'm sure every journalist worth their salt is checking sites like whatdotheyknow.com – or similar sites – but they will all be placing different values on the worth of the sites they search. So some may write off whatdotheyknow.com after one go, others may hit the jackpot the first time and return again and again – as appears to be case with you.

   I suppose the question I should ask now is did you, Paul, say where you got the stories from? If you did, all credit to you. If not, why not, and I would ask the same question of all those other journalists who don't openly mention sites which have assisted with their research.

6. digidickinson

   December 2nd, 2008 at 10:52 am

   6

   I would say that it is worthy of comment because most of the media would not acknowledge the use of this kind of resource at all when, as Alison points out, there is value there for everyone.

   You say you've used it as a source of leads on several occasions. Did you credit the site as the source? If not then I think you're not being transparent and that isnt sustainable. Not crediting sources like this is a prime example of the 'lecture not conversation' attitude in the industry. Thats why the LDP piece is worthy of comment.

   Every journalist worth their salt may be checking sites like this. But it will be every journalist who understands the changes in relationships between journo and audience will be more transparent, like the LDP, who will be best set to benefit.