From a Guardian story on the complicated relationship between scientists and journalism:
[A] seminal paper from the New England Journal of Medicine in 1991 said that if a study was covered by The New York Times it was significantly more likely to be cited by other academic papers.
I'm going to go off on a bit of a tangent on reputation here, inspired by the idea that sober-minded scientists are attaching status to what they read in the paper. (I'm curious though, about how they proved that the more cited papers weren't just more useful studies. But I digress...) Let me start by saying this: one of the many life lessons I should have learned at 20 that I'm finally coming around to at 30ish is that validation from external sources really does drive one's reputation, and that seeing someone's work or name referenced gives a certain reassurance that this here is a person that one can safely cite/quote/namedrop-in-conversation without exposing oneself to too much risk.
Now, it's no big surprise that a mention in the Gray Lady is going to give your credibility a boost. Having the New York Times calls you a "well-regarded Democratic strategist" goes a long way towards making you a well-regarded Democratic strategist. From that point forward, it's like the old saying about safe choices: nobody gets fired for buying IBM. If you've been mentioned in the New York Times, then more many intents and purposes, you're IBM in the minds of many.
Again, none of what I've said if particularly mind-blowing, but what I think might be surprising, if we stop to look at it, is how today this model for the creation of reputation extends so far beyond major publications like the Times, and how validation comes from all sorts of places and all sorts of ways online. I know that just for my own part, seeing a mention of someone -- on blogs I read, whether big or small; on Twitter streams of people I know or admire -- can serve as a tremendous validator of reputation and standing of that person in my own mind.
While I'm not sure it's fair to characterize it as a major failing, I know I'm guilty of taking this idea of validation too far. If a friend has mentioned or blogged about or Twittered with a particular person I don't know all that well, and I'm writing up something quickly for a blog post or essay, I'm very likely to rely upon that third-party validation of that person (and even that third-party description of that that person does, which often, I think it's fair to say, some's straight from the horse's own mouth.)
To take it one step further, if you're career-minded, that reputation gets crafted in this way might makes networking maybe even more important than it has been in the past. If my network has validated you, then me relying upon you to link to or mention or cite is a reduced-risk proposition. I'm probably not going to be humiliated by that decision. But if my network has never heard of you, then it requires more discipline on my part to vet you and come to my own, potentially risky, conclusion. As a fair-minded grown-up (and especially someone engaging in acts of journalism), I have a responsibility to make the effort. But there's no doubt that when time is tight it's easy to fall back on buying IBM.
