Many bloggers linked to Peter Rost’s blog last week, and with damn good reason. He posted an excellent three-part series regarding a Pfizer whistleblower. And, making it yet more interesting, voodoo was allegedly involved. Mack took issue with bloggers linking to Rost, pointing out (accurately) that most who linked to Rost had little to add. I linked to Rost and admit that I added nothing to Rost’s story. Mack then stated that the reason fellow bloggers linked to Rost was because they wanted to increase their visibility, as Rost was nice enough to link back to sites that posted links to his site.
Well, allow me to differ. Do I like getting a little added traffic from Rost? You bet – I’ll take all the traffic I can get. But that is not the main reason I linked the story. I linked it because it is interesting and because I thought my readers should be exposed to it. The more exposure such a story gets, the better. After all, it appears that one thing that many pharma-related sites have in common is to shine light on dubious industry practices. Thus, I see linking to a blogger who is doing good investigative work as a large part of my blogging duties. Am I missing something?