Journalists, those who call themselves journalists and those who think they can save journalism have with increasing frequency dissected journalism and ways to “save” it. We saw this last fall during the We Make the Media conference and its aftermath and we’re going to continue to see it. Most recently, journalists have distracted themselves from actual storytelling by celebrating the Associated Press’ decision to accept the term “website” instead of “Web site,” which had been the AP’s previously preferred style. In a response to that debate, Robert Niles, of the Online Journalism Review argued that “Google style” should trump AP style, anyhow, adding yet another voice to the chorus of those championing search engine optimization (SEO) as a savior of journalism. Though I agree that SEO helps online writers more quickly reach certain audiences, I argue that solely focusing on reaching more eyes can threaten our work’s long-term value. I wanted to reiterate those thoughts here, so I’m going to repeat the comment I posted to OJR:
The idea that “Learning how to write in a way that acquires traffic is a core skill for today’s student journalist” is exactly what failed me as a student journalist when I attended USC’s Specialized Journalism program. Part of its first class, I attended because I was interested in honing a specialty, on deep, expert knowledge of a field supported by extensive academic studies in that field. As it turned out, during the program’s early stages, it felt as if there was a shift in the program’s emphasis — and in the attitude more broadly at Annenberg — towards crash courses in entrepreneurial journalism and developing new writers.
Thankfully, I was still able to hone some of my subject expertise thanks to KC Cole’s masterful teaching of science writing and guidance on my master’s project by Larry Pryor (buttressed by urgings by people like Michael Parks and teachers outside the journalism department to learn how to delve more deeply into subject matter and to better analyze decision-making). Nevertheless, I witnessed an attitude shift among my fellow students and colleagues. Some became less and less interested in what they were writing about, in truly understanding what they wanted to discuss, in favor of drawing eyes to that writing. Such shifts are sad. They are meaningless, and overall, they are detrimental to sustainable economic ventures.
If we must commodify journalism — which I am quite hesitant about — we are wisest if the products we produce are compellingly, effectively presented with lasting informative value. That is why I find arguments like those put forth today by Lisa Barone — a branding expert no less — in her Outspoken Media post about 5 Old Blogging Rules Killing Your Readership so much more useful to writers, including journalists, than insistence upon search. Why? Because Barone focuses so squarely on lasting value.
Ultimately, I’m expanding upon much of what’s been written in this comment section (and, I must admit, I’m somewhat turned off by the vitriol bubbling up in this discussion). Perhaps SEO editors could further hone what we do, but, considering Aspake’s thoughts, journalism should remain committed to “information, ideas, emotion, and context in an original and engaging manner.”
I agree that SEO isn’t about conforming to a robotic standard, but it’s also not about speaking to people, it’s about speaking to some sense of the mean average of what people are looking for. The thing is, if we want to succeed — both in reaching people and in drawing them back to our work — we can’t just be producing what the public is looking for, what the public wants to read. We must, we absolutely must tell the stories that the public doesn’t know it is looking for, that the public isn’t looking for, that the public hasn’t even conceptualized the terms for. If we don’t, in very short order we will tell fewer and fewer stories that matter, that impact society and we will lose not only all impact, but all value we are capable of offering the public.
I’m glad Niles brought the question up and that others paying close attention to the evolution of writing and journalism are paying attention, as Michelle Rafter did on her WordCount blog today. Do you think I’m crazy? Do you think I’m being irrational? Do you think I’m being unrealistic and avoiding the economic pressures journalists face everywhere? Or do you think I’m sane? Do you think I’m focused? Do you think I’m celebrating a quality, well-developed “product” (as much as I cringe at that word)? I’d love to hear what you think.
Also: If you haven’t already, take a look at the Oregon News Incubator. Our collection of happily co-working independent journalists finally has a place to do our own journalism and we’re working on finding a permanent location as we speak. Visit our Web site to find out how you can join us as you do journalism your way in Portland, or help us as we continue to grow.
[...] content with calling out the Online Journalism Review for perpetuating the idea that journalists should prioritize search results over quality [...]
I, too, am glad Niles brought the discussion up, because I disagree with you so strongly, Bill. What’s sad about drawing eyes to words? Isn’t that the opposite of sad, if it works? I think eyes know more or less what they’re doing. And (may my undergraduate liberal arts degree rest in peace) I’m not at all hesitant to commodify news. If we want our work to be untainted by money, let’s all find day jobs.
If j-school has changed since I was there, I’m overjoyed. Too much of my schooling was spent on the ins and outs of an obsolete widget called a news story. They taught us to produce beautiful artifacts; only a few teachers wanted us to think about how our work would be used. In the end, that’s what I care about.
SEO is just one bit of craftsmanship that’s used these days in bringing products to market, and presumably it won’t be important forever. But I don’t see a problem with teaching it now.
Mike, you make a good point about SEO being another bit of craftsmanship and I like the idea that it won’t last forever because now I’m curious what might come next, what might be the next bit of craftsmanship.
What I find sad isn’t drawing eyes to words, it’s the establishment of drawing eyes to words as the primary goal. It’s not about not being tainted by money, it’s about developing what we have that’s valuable. And what we have isn’t just the number of eyes we have directed at a story, it is the quality of information we are able to provide. I’ll repeat a point I made though in a somewhat tweaked manner: part of the value we provide is telling stories for which the public doesn’t know it is searching.
The point about journalism school wasn’t just about the ins and outs of reporting. I’m not talking about inverted pyramids and proper structure. Screw structure. The point was, in some ways, a rather specific one for my program. It was a program intended for the development of specialized journalism and approaches to develop such specialties (using multiple tools, including new media, to develop that expertise) in much the way you’re doing with Portland Afoot or Barry is exploring with arts journalism, but there was a bit of a midstream change in focus. It attracted me for the ability to get deeply into a subject, to study along side students in the subject areas we were planning to cover and specialize in. To learn a bit from the inside, as well as outside.
Some students clamored to learn only about all the ways they could package and repackage their work and had no patience for the actual coursework and program they signed up for. I’m not lamenting that some institutionalized teaching method changed or evolve. If anyone agrees such an approach was a loss it was their loss and not mine. Yet I think it’s foolhardy to think it is necessary to ignore the manufacturing plant in favor of marketing and packaging. Even commodities have their best value when they’re quality commodities.
Oh, and if we don’t continue this discussion here, Bill — I’ve certainly been slow to chime in — maybe we’ll do it in the ONI newsroom.