Is Page View Journalism Really A Problem?
from the not-seeing-it dept
There have been complaints now and again about this concept of "page view journalism" -- the idea that in this digital era, reporters will only take on stories that will drive lots of page views. Tom Foremski and Sam Whitmore -- two media watchers who I know and respect a lot -- recently discussed this issue, worrying that important stories don't get told because of this. Tom quotes Sam:It's now a luxury for a reporter to write a story about an obscure but important topic. That used to be a job requirement. Now it's a career risk.Now I'm sure Sam is being truthful in reporting what he heard from those reporters, but something about this just doesn't ring true to me at all. If you have an "obscure but important topic," that actually tends to be a goldmine for pageviews. Why? Because you're the only one covering it. If you look at the types of stories that get a particular site attention, it's when they really do focus in on an important topic, obscure or not. If it truly is important, then people get interested, and if you've done the definitive reporting on it, the great thing about the internet is it often gets found and promoted widely. I'm speaking as someone who writes about "obscure, but important" topics quite frequently. Honestly, who would think that obscure topics like an international agreement on counterfeiting would be of interest to anyone? But because we cover it in-depth, and people realize that it is important, it generates a lot of interest.
Example: let's say an interesting startup has a new and different idea. Many reporters now won't touch it because (a) the story won't generate page views, and (b) few people search on terms germane to that startup. Potential SEO performance is now a key factor in what gets assigned.
Two reporters from two different publications this month both told us the same thing: if you want to write a story on an interesting but obscure topic, you had better feed the beast by writing a second story about the iPad or Facebook or something else that delivers page views and good SEO.
In fact, over the years, I tend to gravitate away from the "link bait/SEO" efforts, because it always seemed like everyone else was covering it. I don't write about many start-ups because so many other blogs seem to have that beat covered to death. I don't write about the latest gadgets for the same reason. I could -- but I'd be one in the crowd -- and it's really just not that interesting to me. I'd much rather focus on stuff that is interesting to me, and hopefully explain it in a way that is interesting to others, and that the community seems to respond.
So, perhaps it's true that some journalists focus on just writing about the hot topics, and perhaps some publications are focused on that as well. But, at least from my vantage point, that seems like a really bad strategy. It's destined to put your publication and your writing smack dab in the middle of everyone else, with little to distinguish it or to make it worthwhile. Instead, if you do focus on those "obscure but important" topics, and do a good job of it, people will eventually find you and you can build up a strong audience that way.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: journalism, page views, seo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
...
"I don't write about the latest gadgets for the same reason."
So when journalists try to disguise their advertising as news and people don't pay attention that's a problem? I think not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh no, what shall we do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh no, what shall we do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Measurement distortion
Whilst I agree with Mike that "important but obscure" topics would probably show up well if the page views were measured properly and over a long enough period of time I suspect that the people doing the measuring are probably not using an adequate methodology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO MONEY NO FUNNY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's tautological, really: the way you determine if something is important is if it gets a lot of pageviews. If it doesn't get a lot of pageviews, it must not be very important. Therefore, important things will always be covered by pageview-driven reporting.
The question is, what happens when tensions between North and South Korea get one eyeball for every 200 that American Idol reports get? Does this mean that American Idol is "more important" than Korean tensions? Around here, probably yes. By objective standards? Well, it depends whose standards you're using. Clearly you can't use "expert" standards because experts are all shams anyway. Aw, hell, "objective" standards probably aren't all that objectives, so we should get rid of the notion of 'standards' entirely.
The "why worry" theories come out of the woodwork to explain why the 200:1 ratio of eyeballs isn't a problem. The Long Tailers will assert that niche industries will sprout up overnight to serve the 1 eyeball in 200, and will do just as good a job as the reporter serving the other 199. Somehow. Supply-and-demanders will say that the 1 will just pay 200X as much. Somehow. Or if she doesn't, the reporting was obviously not that valuable anyway. Either outcome is good, because it is what the infallible Market decided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm. That wasn't the point I was trying to make, actually, because I don't quite believe the market is "infallible." I do believe that the market can solve a lot of problems, but that's not the same as infallible.
It's tautological, really: the way you determine if something is important is if it gets a lot of pageviews. If it doesn't get a lot of pageviews, it must not be very important. Therefore, important things will always be covered by pageview-driven reporting.
But I'm saying the opposite. The stuff I write about doesn't tend to get the same crazy amounts of traffic as the linkbait/SEO stuff. But it has found *an* audience. It's not that it gets a lot of pageviews, but those interested in the topic can find it and I write for them.
The question is, what happens when tensions between North and South Korea get one eyeball for every 200 that American Idol reports get? Does this mean that American Idol is "more important" than Korean tensions? Around here, probably yes.
Again, you seem to think I said something I didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And right on cue, a Long Tailer appears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your comment would carry more weight if you had evidence that what I claimed was not true. As it stands, it looks like you're being smug for the sake of being smug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem
The real problem with "Page View Journalism" is that no one even cares if a story is true, and they often publish sensational stories just for the pageviews.
TechCrunch is - by far - the biggest offender. Unfortunately, it's also (one of) the biggest tech blogs on the internet. Michael Arrington is outwardly smug about the fact that it doesn't matter if a story is true, so long as people come to read it. From that NY Times article:
This also explains why we see so many "X is a Y killer" stories. The writers know it isn't true. They just need constant sensationalism to drive views, and it gives them an opportunity to promote projects they have a vested interest in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real problem
In this sense TechCruch is no worse or better than, for example, CNET or ZDNet. Both of the latter will tell you that their writers are nothing more than bloggers so that if their slant is pro-MS, pro-Apple or pro-Linux or whatever it doesn't really matter because they aren't really a news or journalistic organization.
They too are driven by "page view journalism" to overstate, indeed panic, about minor security problems, bubble on endlessly about the latest in vapourware from, ohhh, MS to get a lot of page hits.
In the print world tabloids, not just the supermarket variety and may television news programs, mostly local but some national, respond to the old selling papers and radio news rule called "if it bleeds it leads" to gain or maintain audience and retain or increase rating numbers in order to sell that to advertisers. The "old" tech version of "page view journalism".
Of course, if we want, we can blame the internet for that, Rupert Murdock (with some significant justification), CNN (for inventing the 24 hour news cycle now, if seems, down to 24 minutes) and others. Fact is it's always been there.
"This also explains why we see so many "X is a Y killer" stories. The writers know it isn't true. They just need constant sensationalism to drive views, and it gives them an opportunity to promote projects they have a vested interest in."
This applies to a lot more than bloggers. It applies to newspapers, radio and television news, CNET/ZDNet and other tech sites, and just about any advertiser based source of information.
"If it bleeds it leads." Remember that the next time you click on a story about that human train wreck known as Lindsay Lohan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disagree, But Agree With Mike
--Kyle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
definition of news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To which I disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is this any different than print journalisim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those guys are so wrong ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
family
[ link to this | view in chronology ]