Here I go
This has run its course.
Let me introduce, however, to my favorite blog, called Unbiased Eye. Check it out.
This blog will look at the future of journalism from a very specific point of view. The top paper in the country is out to show it can get paying readers for its digital version while the paper product continues withering away. I am thinking out loud, will I pay to read one of my regular news offerings? When I got a Kindle as a present, I thought about it and passed. But then I have as much or as little as I want without charge. Story by story, what's it worth?
When I noticed this decline in popularity of the Mideast story last night, I wondered whether newspaper audiences were the same all over the country. I was surprised that they are all distinct: It was worse inland from the coasts.
With a broad brush, I'll draw several very tentative conclusions. I'll give you the more detailed comparison down at the end of this post. They're fascinating.
Much of this might be expected, but my survey lacks a clear idea how the different publication do their tabulations. I don't have enough information to make sense out of any one paper's lists. I don't know what information they track and how they count it.
Without knowing the relative sizes, say of the number 1 story to the number 10, they are meaningless in terms of an internal comparison. Without the absolute numbers, there is no explaining why some stories seem to stick on the list for days and others come and go.
As far as the methodology, there are different ways to collect clicks and to count them. It looks like the Times collects detailed information, but there are many subtleties.
But interpretation is still difficult. For example, what happens if I start a story at one time and go back to it later? Under what circumstance does that count twice? What happens if I walk away with a Times page on my browser and don't return until after work? Does it imply that I read the story thoroughly and pondered it, or that I walked away with a shrug?
For one thing, the most-emailed list is worthless to me. I suppose the idea is that a story emailed from one reader to another has a special value. But the data are far too biased to have any meaning at all.
The Times has an "email this story" button, but there's no need to use it. It clutters up the email I send to friends so I use the browser function to email the link. If you don't use the Times's button, the Times's logs won't show it as emailed. And finally, no matter what level your technical sophistication, the Times has no clue about your motivation. Maybe the staticians tell the news executives those are inconsequential and will average out -- just the way the Wall Street quants knew the housing market would fall into the chasm that it did.
There's another important issue: Does popularity determine the play of the stories? Different papers say different things. I was thinking that this might be the time for me to get on the phone and ask them, but I that the Times did a good story itself in September on this issue.
The fact is that stories move around all over the front of the web page all day long. Stories appear on the web often hours before the print version is laid out. Does popularity matter?
I think we could answer that with a long-term statistical study of the most-popular lists and the play of the stories, but it would require a long time because we don't know the details of the lists. But if you read the story from September, the answer is clear that they do -- somewhat.
Read the Times's executive editor, Bill Keller: "The New York Times does not use Web metrics to determine how articles are presented, but it does use them to make strategic decisions about its online report," according to the story.
Keller is quoted thusly: "We don't let metrics dictate our assignments and play, because we believe readers come to us for our judgment, not the judgment of the crowd. We're not 'American Idol.' "
Then the story says, "Mr. Keller added that the paper would, for example, use the data to determine which blogs to expand, eliminate or tweak."
I agree 1,000 percent, to borrow a quote from the 1972 presidential campaign. It's carefully worded. The metrics don't dictate, they influence. That's how I read it. It could be a politician talking about his wealthy contributors. I think these lists and the way it looks like the news is following such audience surveys can destroy the news and turn it all into the smiley banter of early morning TV.
I just hope they're god-damn careful about how they interpret the metrics. The consequences could be very bad for them, those people on the Times payroll, and for us.
Here is a most informal comparison done yesterday evening:
The New York Times:
Let's play a game.
Who brought snarkiness to Hollywood's awards extravaganza?
Would you even hesitate for a minute? Or do you live in a vacuum?
Of course the answer is Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes. If you look back at the coverage of the Golden Globes by Hollywood reporters, you will see a triumph of the new media over the old. You can even call it the overturning of authority.
You know this because although Gervais seems to have become unmentionable in the media, his viperish jokes live on Youtube and innumerable little websites that snared the video.
Here are a couple of quotes:
(Thanks to the Telegraph for the wording. My memory's not that good.)
Then yesterday, the LA Times wrote this headline: "Are the Oscars copying the Golden Globes' cyber strategy?"
The story quoting an anonymous reporter said this: "'Why are the Oscars going so crazy using social media to promote the show?' another Oscar reporter asked me yesterday. 'Are they just trying to reach a younger, hipper audience?'"
It's funny that they don't mention Gervais at all.
The NY Times inches closer in its echo of this today: "In one of the latest promotions for the Oscar telecast on Sunday, the hosts, James Franco and Anne Hathaway, do something almost unheard of: they spoof the self-seriousness of the whole endeavor." And in the whole long story, not a word about Gervais.
I guess if you offend the stars and the studios, you will be cut off from all the staged interviews, manufactured leaks and even press releases.
And one more thing: The headline says "snarky", and so I think you can safely assume that the hip kids of today have abandoned it completely.
Serious? Snarky? Oscar Courts a Social Medium