“Presidential campaign coverage that does not seem based on the idea that the presidency is dynastic, and must be handed down to a Clinton or a Bush.”
This is a very important hope for all journalists. To not give in to the seductive narrative of the two dynasties, but to cover the ideals and ideas of the candidates. Whether they’re called Bush, Clinton..,
This The New Yorker profile of a young ‘viral guy’ shines a light on the supply side of the ‘ads race to the bottom’. It’s hilarious. Especially when the journalist visits his childhood home and meets the dad, who ‘speaks in passionate bursts that sound like unrelated fortune-cookie aphorisms spliced together’.
But it’s also a depressing article. It shows how the viral guy, whose name is Emerson Spartz, obsesses over getting pageviews and then plastering his sites with ads. Originality doesn’t meet his business standards, he says, because copy/pasting viral hits from your competitors generates more revenue for less effort.
“We’ve stopped doing that as much because more original lists take more time to put together, and we’ve found that people are no more likely to click on them.”
Here’s a screenshot to give you an idea what you’ll end up with if the above is your business ethos:
I don’t mind that Spartz has chosen this business model and I’m impressed he has built a company around it.
The problem with the king of clickbait though, is that a growing amount of journalists think they should compete with him. They adopt his tactics. They start preaching the viral Evangelic in their editorial offices.
Thinking about how you can reach your audience is fine. But lowering your journalism standards to go viral isn’t.
And that’s exactly what happens when you – as a journalist – look at Emerson Spartz as a source of inspiration.
You’ll then only focus on getting pageviews. You won’t worry about building relationship with readers. You just want to trick them in clicking on your next listicle. You’ll simplify stuff.
It’s a short-term strategy. And if you’ve chosen it, there’s no way back. When the advertisement revenues dry up, you won’t be able to ask for a donation or a subscription fee.
Because you have no loyal readers left.
You’ll end up hoping that you’ll have another hit on Facebook. As Spartz says, ‘Facebook should be eighty per cent of your effort’.
It will probably be right around that time when the audience is getting fed up with the click bait and will be looking for a thoughtful alternative. Deep reads, analysis. A news site that only serves their needs. That’s focused on getting them informed rather than addicted.
A site they’ll probably be willing to pay money for.
A Saudi businesswoman wanted her London boardroom lined with books about the West’s engagement with Islam and the Arab world. The thousand-or-so books—a reader’s selection rather than a true collector’s library—cost £80,000.
“When media companies think of growth, they tend to think of it as a marketing function. We talk about growth as a technology function—building tools and products, and making changes in your platform. That’s more lasting than a marketing campaign. Marketing campaigns end after you run out of money.”
I agree 100% with Buzzfeed’s publisher Dao Nguyen. She said this in an interview with Wired.
That’s what a friend asked me when I had just finished watching The West Wing. It took me 3.5 years to watch all seven seasons (and I was already late to the party).
A couple of years ago, he told me he occasionally watched episodes before going to work. It gave him energy.
Before answering his question, this is what I learned from The West Wing:
Governing is hard. It’s easy to judge a president’s decision based on just one side of the story, as we all do on Twitter. But The West Wing made me realize how complex governing is.
Know and test your values. They will be challenged in ways you can’t imagine as soon as you gain influence.
Turn off your ego.
Campaigning is math.
I could go on for a while. These are just the first things that come to mind.
Then there’s the matter of working harder because of The West Wing.
I recognize this. I too want to make a difference after seeing Josh, Toby, Will, Charlie and CJ serving their fellow citizens. I too am determined to do everything in my power to use my talents to the best of my ability.
At the same time, there’s a danger in getting energy from The West Wing. It’s not hard to get motivated when you have to report to the Oval Office. When lives are at stake.
The West Wing can make your own work look futile. Especially when you’re the same age as Donna and Charlie. The trick is to get past this. To believe your work is already helping people too (and it probably does). And that you’re already giving almost everything you have. You can use The West Wing as an inspiration to give even more.
Journalists have recently wrote op eds that The West Wing is outdated. That we’ve seen our liberal dreams shattered to pieces with the Obama presidency (which I don’t agree with). House of Cards does a better job in showing how the world works, they say.
I think it’s hard to get more cynical than that.
The West Wing is a series about using your talents and making close to impossible decisions for the greater good. If I’ll try to live up to that, then yes, The West Wing made me a better person.
With De Correspondent, we publish our stories everywhere. Listen to our podcasts on our site, Soundcloud or iTunes? It’s up to you.
Recently someone made fun of our low YouTube numbers. ‘They invested all this money in a video and all they got was a couple of hundred views’. Well, he missed the thousands of views of the Facebook video. Continue reading The ‘Everywhere’ Strategy
Every time I published a post, I became obsessed with how it got picked up. Even when I didn’t care.
This article, for example, isn’t written to attract big audiences. My blog serves as a public notebook. It forces me to rephrase the incoherent thoughts in my mind into clear stories other people should understand.
But with the stats waiting there for me, I couldn’t resist checking how many people read along with my pondering about the future of publishing.
So I killed them.
Because the only metric that concerns me is how many new insights you and I get through this new blog.
I only know Stephen King from the movie adaptations of The Shining, The Green Mile, The ShawshankRedemption.But after reading On Writing, I feel like I’ve known King for ages.
He writes about his wandering youth, drug addiction and a near-death experience – caused by a guy who had a hard time driving a Dodge van. King does this to show why he writes. ‘For the buzz’ and ‘as a spit in the eye of despair’.
These are the things I’ll remember after reading On Writing:
Shut the door. King stresses that you shouldn’t ask people to read along. It’s about your imagination and you shouldn’t worry about explaining the story at an early stage.
Write two drafts. Don’t edit while writing the first one. You’re trying to uncover a fossil; a story of which the first idea has popped up in your mind and that you should now try to grasp in its entirety. Just worry about the story.
Keep the first draft in a drawer for six weeks.
In the second draft, look for meaning and ideas. Rewrite the story in such a way that your theme comes out more clearly for the future reader.
Formula: 2nd draft = 1st draft – 10%.
Alcohol and drugs won’t stimulate your creativity.
‘Life isn’t a support system for art. It’s the other way around.’
‘God, if only I were in the right writing environment, with the right understanding people, I just KNOW I could be penning my masterpiece’.
Without making any false promises – ‘a good writer will never become a great writer’ – King encourages you to start uncovering fossils.
Of course this is a terrible summary of a wise and warm book. Please just see it as a lengthy recommendation to read On Writing.
If I’ll, one day, will want to write a work of fiction, I’ll definitely read this book again.
But first, I’ll read at least one of Kings novels. When you’ve come to like a person so much in just a couple of evenings, you want to know what he has created.
I’m just posting this video here for future reference.
Of course I had read the profiles about senator Elizabeth Warren, but after having seen this senate speech about the damning influence of banks on the US (and thus the rest of the world), I now truly understand what she stands for. And how she’s willing to get that message across.
A journalist from The Guardian once showed me their in-house analytics platform Ophan. I was really impressed by its clarity.
Unlike Google Analytics – which has an interface that’s littered with features for analysts and marketers – Ophan is every man’s analytics platform. Everyone at the company can easily access the tool, even on their phones.