This Post Is Not About Steve Jobs
from the no,-really,-it's-not dept
Yesterday morning, I was on a panel discussion at an event, where at one point I was asked about how I choose what to write about. I explained a little bit about the kinds of topics we cover, and then finally said, as I've said for years: "In the end, it comes down to whether or not I find something interesting and if I have something to say about it." I then said: "If there's a story everyone is covering, but I don't have anything to say about it, I don't feel the need to cover it." Hopefully this isn't surprising. We're not a "news" site, but an opinion site. But there's really more to it than that. There's something a little strange in seeing a ton of publications all rushing to cover the same news. There is this focus, these days, on the so-called "SEOing" of the news, where various sites act as "content farms," focusing on writing about whatever's "hot" to try to get the pageviews. As an example of this, earlier this week, right after the East Coast earthquake, I saw someone Twitter joke about an infamous tech news site (who shall remain nameless), saying that its staff were probably rushing out dozens of stories about how the earthquake news spread on Twitter. Anything to get the "pageviews" on searches about the earthquake.But, as I've said over the years, this strategy makes no sense to me. Why would you ever focus on a strategy of trying to downgrade your content to commodity level, rather than working on content that is unique and actually stands out? Writing the same story that everyone else writes about, without adding anything of value to it just seems like a fool's game. I can recognize that "news" sites feel the need to cover such stories on a completist level, but does the online news reader really need so many stories about a single event? Isn't part of the point of the internet that we can link without having to recreate the wheel thousands of times every time some big news breaks?
Which brings us to the title of this post. When the news broke that a certain famous and visionary tech CEO was retiring, I honestly couldn't think of anything to say about it that wasn't being said everywhere else. But, of course, everyone else felt the need to write something. Just a quick look at Google News on the topic shows nearly 5,000 stories on just that:
I asked, via various social networking platforms, if anyone minded if we just didn't cover the story at all. And I was a bit surprised at how the near unanimous reaction was to thank us for deciding not to cover the news. There were a few people who disagreed. Only one person seemed really surprised that we wouldn't, saying, "he is significant, why wouldn't you" cover the story. One person offered to give us money if we could go three weeks without covering the story (I'm guessing this post may disqualify us). A few people did say they would like our take on "the impact" of the story. In this case, the answer is I have no idea.
So this post isn't about his resignation. It's about this question of how people cover the news online today, and the desire for everyone to "have the story" just because everyone else does. I'm wondering if that really makes sense. I am, of course, quite comfortable with not covering the story at all. There are lots of stories we don't cover. But I'm wondering about the value of so many publications all writing the same basic story. Yes, some (perhaps many) do add value or different perspectives. But the basic facts are pretty much the same.
So, if we don't cover a story, it's not because we didn't see it or don't know about it. Sometimes, it's just because we think it's pretty well covered by everyone else already -- perhaps too well covered -- and our time may be better spent doing something else where we can actually add some value.
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: internet, journalism, reporting, stories
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*applause*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*slams down mask*
LONE STAR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dark Helmets
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by. And that has made all the difference." -Robert Frost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The title is as simple as it's genial. And as I went on reading it I found it funnier and funnier (epic win for the disqualification Mike!).
But I have to give techdirt one huge thumbs up for the way you do your 'blogging'. If every1 only wrote about it when there was value to be added news and opinions would... well, be more valued.
Reminds me of one time I had to go looking for the source of some news and I got through 6 sites, one citing the other without really adding anything to the news.
Good article, I certainly see Jobs resignation with other eyes now ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sheesh, I'm turning into my dad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really need to update my RSS reader to something that can say "filter x+y" for next x days/weeks/years. Ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
(*true story)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Out of those 5000+ stories, you can bet than most of them were varations or direct reprints of the AP or other wire story, internal networked stories, etc.
Remember also: while 5000 seems like a big number available online, it might have been also the only print newspaper, or the only local tv news channel, or the only radio station in an area to cover the story. The count online alone is meaningless, because we can see many markets at the same time.
However, the citizen journalist thing also plays into it, with every Apple fanboi and h8tr coming along to praise or bury Jobs. That is all passes as "news" is a big part of the problem. Without the filters, the noise level will get you every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh.
That's not even taking into account the myriad ways this news may potentially impact various groups, although that is mostly speculation (excluding the financial sector) at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meh.
So? You still covered it, and there's still a headline (which is what Mike was counting with his Google search).
Besides, how do you know that many simply didn't repost the resignation notice and/or press release? Why do a one sentence blurb that links them to another site, when all THEY did is post the notice?
Why make your readers do extra work? That's not how you keep readers.
FInally, as the parent said, there are a LOT of Apple sites and a LOT of tech sites, each followed by their own audiences. Just because TUAW posted an article doesn't mean that the audience following MacUser or Ars Technica saw it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have finally hit on what is wrong with newspapers today
Hopefully the news industry will see massive shrinking as profits wane and then we might see a few sites pop up and do real, old fashioned, in-depth reporting. Until then, we will have to put up with the stuff that passes for news these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have finally hit on what is wrong with newspapers today
The issue here is that if you consider 'news outfits' to be the terrain and 'news' to be vegetation we are currently living in a barren/desert land with a few oasis every now and then. Quantity is not an issue. Lack of quality is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Comment is NOT about Mike Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CmdrTaco
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CmdrTaco
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CmdrTaco
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CmdrTaco
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: CmdrTaco
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CmdrTaco
BTW, the media is clamoring to be the first. I was in WoW when my guildie got notice on his android phone and mentioned it in mumble. I don't have the exact same news apps he does, but 2 min later all my iPhone apps lit up, spam texting me the news.
It's pretty much the media trying "FIRST POST"ing...heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's just no real explanation for some human behavior. That's the beauty of it. Still, it does seem that a lot of very important stories get buried by gluts of SEO'd news stories...on purpose? Reverse SEO'd? It's not a new concept and since mainstream media is moving online, clearly that is a major consideration in powering what news people hear about and what they don't.
I'm sure it's a big deal for Steve Jobs to make this move. I remember when Bill Gates did. And then there was Disney...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I read that as "I remember when Bill Gates died." I thought I was missing a piece of tech news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, I don't find just linking to one or two stories about some topics is always very advantageous either. I've lost track of the number of times (this is most especially true of political stories) where story X will have details story Y left out, while leaving out details that story Y had. And then I'll find story Z that has details added of missing from X or Y or both.
The services I find most useful are those that give me the X,Y, and Z stories without the hundreds of identical repostings of each.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why it's good that several places wrote about it
If the news wasn't covered by a particular news outlet, how would people who only get their news from that source know about it? Some people aren't like most of us here, reading a very large cross-section of news sources. Some people only get news from local TV stations. Some only read a site or two. Some only read the local newspaper.
So while I wholeheartedly agree that it's silly and a bit annoying that everyone and their metaphorical dog has a story on it, and despise half-news that's created just for pageviews, maybe it's a good thing news is covered in multiple places. But yes, if any news entity is going to run an article, for the love of the gods please have a unique take on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why it's good that several places wrote about it
[news]
Steve Jobs Retired (link)
[/news]
A few of the blogs I visit do exactly that; sometimes, they'll post at the end of the day, a single post with links to all the news stories they thought were relevant, but didn't have anything to add to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blue ocean
That's the difference between a red ocean and a blue ocean approach. Obviously, you're blue ocean. i'm sure you know what i'm talking about but for those who don't, here's a link to this theory of innovation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Mike :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Mike :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you do the old "different" schtick.
In the past, you've mentioned that the most certain way to success is to find what's hot and do it better. This isn't better, it's just the common revulsion against more of what you see nearly everywhere, and a standard attempt to direct that common revulsion to your specific benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finding the holier-than-thou, sarcastic angle on stories = Value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Own Comments
So, I still log in daily (aside from weekends, and rarely during evenings) and still peruse the articles (read probably 80% of articles, and go through comments of about 75% of those) but I leave much fewer comments these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My Own Comments
Wait, what did I just do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How meta.
I guess over the next few days you will write about people writing about people writing about Steve Jobs.
Oh, wait, we know he will. That is what the weekend recap posts are for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve's last day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ra: Ra: Ra:
I guess if the matter was as squeaky clean as the fruit farm's marketing art, there would be little to say here. I'm glad you found that the dirt was how the technologists were going supernova covering it and being covered by it. Starbucks baristas blew their steam jets, me bets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh come on, you know the answer to this. The readers are not the customer the are the product being sold. Site like that treat readers like factory farms treat cattle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerbs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
everyone writing the same thing OR writers are sheep
Just my opinion.
Janell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attempt number 3 at preventing Steve Jobs auto-tweet deluge...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
classic Masnick comment of the year...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA,, that is SO FUNNY coming from Masnick !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usual Masnick 'quality'
yes you are probably asked HOW alot, and may be even sometimes WHO you choose to write about as well !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you choose not to rush into the bleeding edge of developments, you also give up that early advantage in defining what has happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wag the dog
Tail wagging the dog !!!!
Mike so you only post what you think the people want to hear from you, what you think will get you the most views.
Facts and news are secondary to you !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misleading?
Or maybe not, maybe TD will be pulled up for being too accurate now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, Mike did feel the need to mention him, to talk about him, and perhaps to indirect benefit from the traffic buzz around him.
It is always amusing to watch you guys fall for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No?
Well, I guess I'll go back to not reading about Steve Jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]