I wonder if it will get so bad that an 'expensive' subscription to a competent journalism outfit will seem attractive, or will we collectively just stop caring as we are fed more and more crap? It's not enough to have some customers value a pricier better product, -you need a critical mass of them...
- The point is not to criticize the Huffington Post for being extremely efficient at optimizing its work. They invested a lot, they trained their people well. Of course, the bulk of HuffPo’s content comes from : a) unpaid bloggers — 9,884 new ones last year alone according to Arianna’s count; b) content borrowed from others media and re-engineered by 170 journalists, a term that encompass various kinds of news producers and a bunch of true writers and editors; c) a small percentage of original reporting. Each day, all this concurs to “over 1,000 stories published” that will translate into 1.4 million of Facebook referrals and 250,000 comments. Staggering numbers indeed. With some downsides, too: 16,000 comments (!) for an 200 words article about Barack Obama asking to turn off Fox News during a campaign tour is not likely to attract enviable demographics advertising-wise. The HuffPo might make a billion page views per month, but most of them only yield dimes.
Why is it not the point? HuffPo serves SEO first, and consumers second. Their success doesn't mean they shouldn't be criticized. It is not "besides the point". This is not simply about two businesses employing different models, in many respects, this is about two different types of business.
- Why is it not the point? HuffPo serves SEO first, and consumers second.
Maybe it is not the point in the sense that news outfits have not served consumers for some time now, be they digital or print. Isn't this just the logical continuance of 'for-profit' news? How may papers were closed by conglomerates to serve the shareholders and the bottom line? How many once solid papers tilted to embrace sensationalism headlines...sex, violence...it sells. The Fourth Estate has been dumbing down for a while to sell more papers, -they've gotten in bed with governments they were supposed to be watching in order to keep getting fed more 'scoops' to sell more papers, they've killed stories to keep their corporate advertisers happy. This process is continually being further refined. It's an art and a science and they are getting better at it.
I remember a couple years ago listening to a round-table discussion on NPR where a guest offhandedly said that Fox was not a news organization. Immediately, the host was like: "Whoa whoa whoa! We don't say things like that!" (It's almost like using the term liar to describe a politician. Third rail stuff.) But, IMO it's close to the truth. By my definition, Fox, CNN and MSNBC are "newsertainment" organizations. Not news organizations. HuffPo is the same. It just might be that for-profit news cannot be quality in this day and age. Personally, I think a quality for-profit news organization could work, but only if they cater to a smaller select audience. Unfortunately, if the organization is publicly traded, it won't take long until a CEO ruins it for more money.
But let's be honest, its not like old media were good until the stock model ruined their business. Hearst wasn't exactly an idealist who wanted to enlighten the masses.
- But let's be honest, its not like old media were good until the stock model ruined their business. Hearst wasn't exactly an idealist who wanted to enlighten the masses.
The worst, worst part is that our leadership in this country uses these media outlets as serious platforms to spread their message. They give credence to this garbage.
What I am writing will touch on some of this. I'd like to hear what else you think about it though.
Seriously, I would describe it in short and say, If you are truly interested in what Hubski is, you have to Hubski.