Does Web 2.0 Negatively Affect Content?

November 2nd, 2006

Technology In past posts I’ve mused on what a Web 2.0 newspaper would look like. Blogger Seamus McCauley directed me to a South American newspaper (Las Ultimas Noticias) that since 2004, has basically doing what I envisioned: using clicks on their website to determine what stories to cover and run in their print edition. The result?

A tabloid-esque, celebrity gossip-and-babes newspaper. From Editors Weblog:

“Las Ultimas Noticias, a struggling top-end paper, began following stories based on the click-count they received on the paper’s website. Stories that received many clicks were assigned reporters, and those with few were dropped. This strategy resulted in many fluff stories… the paper became filled with celebrities and scantily clad girls.”

Well, if that’s what the people want, maybe that’s what they should get. However, those who hold the idea that news should inform (old media folks) will be disappointed. Maybe this is one reason for newspapers’ resistance to the “interweb” - it raises the old issue of the “lowest common denominator”; the old scare of “tabloidization.”

I must mention that there’s a downside to tracking clicks, which show the more implusive side of users. Stories might be better ranked by a public rating system, even one step further would be public comments as necessary to register a “yeah” vote. The public admission is key: many would publicly suggest coverage of the latest productivity numbers, while “secretly” clicking on underwear model stories. Nothing wrong with that, but maybe perhaps websites should track the best aspects of their users to determine content directions.

Anyhow, market forces ultimately decide who stays in business. This isn’t really a matter of what newspapers want. I imagine the shift to the internet as similar to the move from radio to television: all the eyeballs are moving to the web. Print will still be around (as is radio) but it’s a safe bet it won’t people’s primary source for news - it sure isn’t for me.

Here’s an extensive American Journalism article on the subject, better than anything I could write on my own (I won’t be replaced by a “real” journalist any time soon).

On a related note, J. Leroy is doubtful that quality content is really driving the stories that make the front page of digg and other social news websites.

Many have wryly observed that the posts that make it to the digg front page center around a handful of subjects: Apple, digg, Kevin Rose, and top ten lists. There are many who try to “link bait” and write leading headlines just to get dugg (and/or improve their SEO ranking). You can even use this semi-serious digg headline generator to create a headline for you.

Despite this shameless self-promotion, I’m still on the side that quality content will win out. Perhaps selfishly, because, that’s what I try to do. I do admit to sometimes leaning over into the loaded headline realm to get people to read a story (how else can you explain my headline “Stupid Apple Mistakes…”), but that’s my personality. I read The Economist while eagerly awaiting the Borat movie.

And I try to back up my headlines with real content. Hopefully, I did that in this post.

Please subscribe to the Webomatica RSS Feed!