3 ms·

This memo highlights a problem that I’ve noticed recently as the public debates the legitimacy and effectiveness of the media. This chief editor is basically t

This memo highlights a problem that I’ve noticed recently as the public debates the legitimacy and effectiveness of the media. This chief editor is basically telling his people to write what readers want to read. But there’s a difference between what readers always want to read and what may be necessary to read. For example, if people only read what they wanted to read, how many people would really take interest in a possibly boring but important scandal? The Catholic Church sex abuse scandal comes to mind. It’s impact was global, but it’s not really related to domestic political battles or terrorism or whatever else really sells in the media these days. The problem is worse now because news isn’t sold as a broadsheet anymore, where subscribers might not read everything in an issue, but eyes are on all of the stories. Is that the case when everyone gets to pick a la carte from a website, especially when management like this is telling reporters to focus on what gets the most clicks?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> how many people would really take interest in a possibly boring but important scandal? The Catholic Church sex abuse scandal comes to mind. There's very little that is more attention grabbing than sex scandal. Except sex scandal involving children. Or one involving an large powerful institution around which political and culture war controversy (both internal and external to the institution) is constant, especially on sexual issues. > It’s impact was global, but it’s not really related to domestic political battles Yes, it was, especially because the Catholic Church is perpetually engaged in those battles on sexual issues, and because the scandal immediately intersected with the debate on those issues, as well as ongoing internal organizational debates in the institution such as the role of celibacy and homosexuals in the clergy that directly overlapped with the political and culture war issues the Church is regularly engaged in. So, yeah, worst possible example, even if one grants that you might have a generally valid point.
spsful 6y ago
I think his point was more well-intentioned. If writers wanted to quickly get an issue out to print (or publish), they could make it easily readable at <400 words. But if it's a tell-all, he gives them full authority to make it a long piece. If it's a particularly boring subject then maybe the writers will start making those stories shorter? In that case, the important details would still be there, just not as well explained. I don't think this restricts their journalism at all.
Legogris 6y ago
I think this is more targeting droning exposes of the life history of individuals and what they had for lunch - fluff content in articles that could have had the same information in 25% of the length without feeling overly terse.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> how many people would really take interest in a possibly boring but important scandal? The Catholic Church sex abuse scandal comes to mind. There's very little that is more attention grabbing than sex scandal. Except sex scandal involving children. Or one involving an large powerful institution around which political and culture war controversy (both internal and external to the institution) is constant, especially on sexual issues. > It’s impact was global, but it’s not really related to domestic political battles Yes, it was, especially because the Catholic Church is perpetually engaged in those battles on sexual issues, and because the scandal immediately intersected with the debate on those issues, as well as ongoing internal organizational debates in the institution such as the role of celibacy and homosexuals in the clergy that directly overlapped with the political and culture war issues the Church is regularly engaged in. So, yeah, worst possible example, even if one grants that you might have a generally valid point.

spsful 6y ago

I think his point was more well-intentioned. If writers wanted to quickly get an issue out to print (or publish), they could make it easily readable at <400 words. But if it's a tell-all, he gives them full authority to make it a long piece. If it's a particularly boring subject then maybe the writers will start making those stories shorter? In that case, the important details would still be there, just not as well explained. I don't think this restricts their journalism at all.

Legogris 6y ago

I think this is more targeting droning exposes of the life history of individuals and what they had for lunch - fluff content in articles that could have had the same information in 25% of the length without feeling overly terse.