Digital media zealots are confused: they mistake news activity for the health of the news business. Unfortunately, the two are not correlated. What they promote as a new kind of journalism carries almost no economic value. As great as they are from a user standpoint, live blogging / tweeting, crowdsourcing and hosting "experts" blogs bring very little money – if any, to the news organization that operates them. Advertising-wise and on a per page basis, these services yield only a fraction of what a premium content fetches. On some markets, a blog page will carry a CPM (Cost per Thousand page views) of one, while premium content will get 10 or 15 (euros or dollars). In net terms, the value can even be negative, as many such contents consume manpower in order to manage, moderate, curate or edit them.

More realistically, these contents also carry some indirect but worthy value: in a powerful way, they connect the brand to the user. Therefore, I still believe news organization should do more, no less of such coverage. But we should not blind ourselves: the economic value isn't there. It lies in the genuine and unique added value of original journalism deployed by organizations of varying size and scope, ranging from traditional media painfully switching to the new world, to pure online players -- all abiding by proven standards.

What's behind the word standard is another area of disagreement with Jeff Jarvis, as he opposes the notion of standards to what he calls "process", or "journalism in beta" (see his interesting post Product v. process journalism; The myth of perfection v. beta culture).  Personally, I'd rather stick to the quest for perfection rather than embrace the celebration of the "process". The former is inherently more difficult to reach, more prone to the occasional ridicule (cf. the often quoted list of mishaps by large newspapers). As for the latter, it amounts to shielding behind the comfortable "We say this, but we are not sure; don't worry, we'll correct it over time".

To some extent, such position condones mediocrity. It's one thing to acknowledge live reporting or covering developing stories bear the risk of factual errors. But it is another to defend inaccuracies as a journalistic genre, as a French site did (until recently): it labeled its content with tags like "Verified", "Readers' info", etc.

Approximation must remain accidental, it should not be advocated as a normal journalistic way.

In the digital world, the rise of the guesstimate is also a byproduct of the structure in which a professional reporter finds himself competing with the compulsive blogger or twitterer. Sometimes, the former will feel direct pressure from the latter ("Hey, Twitter is boiling with XY, could you quickly do something about it? — Not yet, I'm unable to verify... — Look pal, we need to do something, right?). Admittedly, such competition can be a good thing: we'll never say enough how much the irruption of the reader benefited and stimulated the journalistic crowd.

Unfortunately, the craze of instant "churnalism" tends to accommodate all the trade’s deviances. Today, J-Schools consider following market demands and teaching the use of Twitter or live-blogging at the expense of learning more complex types of journalism. Twenty years ago, we were still hoping the trade of narrative writing could be taught in newsrooms populated with great editors, but this is no longer the case. Now, most of the 30-40 something who plunged into the live digital frenzy have already become unable to produce long form journalism. And the obsessive productivism of digital serfdom won't make things better (as an illustration, see this tale of a burned-out AOL writer in Faster Times).

The business model will play an important role in solving this problem. Online organizations will soon realize there is little money to be made in "process-journalism". But, as they find it is a formidable vector to drive traffic and to promote in-depth reporting, they will see it deserves careful strategizing.

Take Twitter. Its extraordinary growth makes it one of the most potent news referral engines. Two weeks ago, at the D9 conference, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo  (video here) released a stunning statistic: it took three years to send the first billion tweets; today, one billion tweets are send every six days.

No wonder many high profile journalists or writers enjoy tweeter audiences higher than many news organizations, or became a brand on their own, largely thanks to Twitter. The twice Pulitzer prize winner and NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has 1.1m followers, that is one third of the New York Times' official Twitter accounts followers.  And Nobel Prize economist Paul Kurgman, who also writes for the New York Times, has more than 610,000 followers. Not bad for specialized writing.

In some cases, the journalist will have a larger Twitter audience that the section where he/she writes: again for the NY Times, the business reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin has 20 times more followers (370,000) than Dealbook, the sub-site he edits. According to its CEO Arthur Sulzberger, a NY Times story is tweeted every four seconds, and all Times Twitter accounts have four times more followers that any other paper in America. Similarly, the tech writer Kara Swisher has 50 times more Twitter followers (757,000) that her employer, the WSJ tech site AllThingsD .

There are several ways to read this. One can marvel at the power of a personal branding that thrives to the mother ship's benefit. Then, on the bean counter floor, someone else will object this stream of  tweets is an unmonetized waste of time. Others, at the traffic analytic desk, will retort Twitter's incoming traffic represents a sizable part of the audience, and can therefore be measured in hard currency. Well… your pick.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com


Print Friendly