In the 1980s, when the online possibilities of news publishing were starting to become clearer, a smart man told me something that I started telling other journalists: "One of these days, we're going to find out what people actually want to read."Presstime: Nielsens for the Print World. As Publisher Augustine Edwards told USA Today in December, “I am not of the school that says, ‘Eat porridge, it’s good for you.’ I’m focused not on what people should be reading, but in uniting them around what they want to be reading.” Among other plans, Edwards says he wants to base reporter salaries on how many hits their stories generate. This, many say, could be the state of American journalism in the near future if standards aren’t put into place to prevent it.
He was referring to the granular nature of data. We can't know what people are reading in the printed newspaper. We can know exactly what they're choosing to read online -- or at least what stories they're starting to read online.
Someone has to decide what stories get to the top of the first page. Maybe it's editors. Maybe it's the community.
If popularity rules, then the nature of the community will be what counts if we believe in serious journalism. Attract people who believe what they read in supermarket tabloids and on Fox News, and they'll make decisions in a certain manner. Attract other kinds of folks, and they'll make other kinds of decisions.
(Updated to correct spelling of "Nielsens"; thanks, Scott.)
As long as newspapers are supported by advertising, they will never let important local stories get top space -- can't afford to offend advertizers, can't afford to offend the Chamber of Commerce, the money folks, developers and so on.
Besides the really important stories are on the comix pages and sports pages, right?
Posted by: degustibus | May 02, 2005 at 07:30 AM
Someone has to decide what stories get to the top of the first page. Maybe it's editors. Maybe it's the community.
It's definitely the community now, as long as the site allows deep linking. I can hardly remember the last time I entered a news site through the front page, and most that force me to a login, free or not, inspire me to look elsewhere first for the information.
No longer can a story be marginalized by pushing it to page five. Someone somewhere will raise the story's profile to a commentary and link on page one of their site.
The user also gets to decide. In my RSS aggregator, I can set my own priorities based on what is of interest to me.
Posted by: brent ashley | May 02, 2005 at 07:50 AM
One of these days, we're going to find out what people actually want to read.Unlike print, online websites can learn what news people are reading. Unlike print, online newspapers can create a different front page for each reader. We should use these advantages to help people find the news they need.
Posted by: Greg Linden | May 02, 2005 at 08:38 AM
"Attract people who believe what they read in supermarket tabloids and on Fox News, and they'll make decisions in a certain manner."
Quite right. And those who believe what supermarket tabloids and CBS News tell them will make decisions in another manner.
Posted by: Tom Wrona | May 02, 2005 at 08:57 AM
We can already know what readers want to read. Yahoo News has a section for "Most Popular", "Most Emailed", and "Highest Ranked" news items. One thing: it's not sports. Nobody cares much about sports. See
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index&cid=964 . BTW, these pages are read daily at the White House and similar so they can see what interests the public.
Posted by: Andreas Ramos | May 02, 2005 at 09:32 AM
Ah, finally a plan to make every newspaper read like the May sweeps newscasts:
"Someone died today. Was it your Mother?"
"Real or Fake? We put breast implants to the test."
"Now *every* page is 'Page 3'!"
Posted by: Scote | May 02, 2005 at 10:05 AM
If my salary depends on page hit counts, then I'll be writing a lot of "naked man on bicycle" stories. I might even pay for placement on sites like Fark and still come out ahead if enough hits come through.
Posted by: Anspar Jonte | May 02, 2005 at 10:06 AM
If a race to the lowest common denominator is the worst that happens, I will be relieved. I think it is only a question of time before the PR firm of Smoke, Mirrors and Hatchet develops a computer hype-virus that seeks out zombies to generate hits to any web site carrying a story they placed. Like a denial of service attack, only milder, just enough to up the hit count for the stories they want to hype.
Posted by: Alice Marshall | May 02, 2005 at 10:37 AM
Isn't this an eternal tension which fuels the idealist aspect of journalism? The idea of telling people what they need to know, rather than want they want. But of course, the business side runs on what they want, rather than what they need.
In fact, quite a few people are happy that the the business model is changing, since it gives them an opportunity to replace rather dull civic lecturing with bread 'n circuses.
There's new businesses data-mining what is popular. Less so what is "necessary", in an abstract sense. It's very interesting to see this being worked-out.
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | May 02, 2005 at 12:39 PM
It doesn't have to be that it's "either the editors or the audience that decide what goes on the front page." Why not have it so that we all get two votes: one vote to use ourselves, and the other a proxy vote we give to someone who we trust to tell us what's worth reading. Then these newsy individuals can help shepard us through what's worth reading. A mixture of experts (decided by us) and us.
Posted by: Brent Stangl | May 02, 2005 at 02:20 PM
Regarding Seth's comment: "Isn't this an eternal tension which fuels the idealist aspect of journalism? The idea of telling people what they need to know, rather than want they want."
Indeed, this seems to be the crux of the matter. For however MSM are experimenting with participatory, collaborative and otherwise hip & fun ways to (re) establish relationships with readers, the salary-earning side of journalism is still based on "telling people what they need to know." The deep distrust of letting those 'people' (yes, the Other) in, making them part of the editorial process, signifies this reliance on a professional identity that is all about keeping everyone but your colleagues OUT.
There are many people out there who do not know what is good for them for most of the time. But sometimes, they do. Equally, there are many journalists who do not come up with good, original and insightful news, but sometimes, they do. Aren't journalists just regular people, and arent't all people to some extent just regular journalists?
Just as the newspaper ombudsman has always been at the bottom of the newsroom hierarchy, for most journalists those colleagues involved in maintaining interactivity on their newssites are simply not 'real' journalists. It is that attitude and mindset, as shaped through a century-long process of constructing people as (mass) 'audiences', that IMHO holds the key to journalism's future.
Posted by: Mark Deuze | May 02, 2005 at 04:05 PM
"If popularity rules, then the nature of the community will be what counts if we believe in serious journalism. Attract people who believe what they read in supermarket tabloids and on Fox News, and they'll make decisions in a certain manner. Attract other kinds of folks, and they'll make other kinds of decisions."
*Please* let me have professional editors editing the news. Sure they will make mistakes. Of course they will err.
*But*, they will apply professional news judgement to what comes across their desks, and *that* is good for society.
They will separate the wheat from the chaff, and *that* is good for society.
They will apply critical thinking skills, and *that* is good for society.
Now [sigh], I have to go study www.dhmo.org *again*!
Posted by: A. Nonny Mouse | May 02, 2005 at 05:25 PM
I linked to C-Net Newsburst beta trial and find I love aggregators. RSS linking seems confusing for a non-tech but thrashing around with it is still worthwhile. Because I read lots of provocative weblogs (Blogrolls) and enjoy comment back-and-forth, editorial analysis is the hardest thing to come by. Bread and circuses are fine, but a bit of thoughtful perspective should sell.
Posted by: opit | May 02, 2005 at 08:10 PM
"think it is only a question of time before the PR firm of Smoke, Mirrors and Hatchet develops a computer hype-virus that seeks out zombies to generate hits to any web site carrying a story they placed."
Alice, you're scary.
and right.
Posted by: Anna | May 03, 2005 at 05:58 PM
Interesting how long it’s taken the print world to learn this important lesson.
When I was a reporter during the 1980s, I remember one newsroom staff meeting after another where the managing editor told anyone listening that he understood the community and would decide what’s good for the readers. Of course those claims were based on absolutely nothing.
Papers hated to spend money on readership surveys. And when they did, management seemed to have an ability to twist the numbers to suit their personal whims. When I worked in Anchorage, a popular entertainment section of the paper was axed when the editor-in-chief claimed readers didn’t like it. An editor found the results of the survey that showed the exact opposite. Turns out the editor just didn’t like the section. Not too surprisingly, the paper closed three years later.
It’s one thing to have numbers and it’s another thing to make the right choices
Posted by: John Spilker | May 04, 2005 at 08:33 AM