Key Takeaways
- Focusing on traffic data can lead to sensationalism and clickbait journalism, compromising the quality of reporting.
- Keeping writers unaware of traffic numbers helps them prioritize in-depth storytelling and human-centered writing.
- Different organizations have varying approaches to traffic data, with some using it for audience insights and others strictly avoiding it to maintain journalistic integrity.
Imagine a world where journalists were obsessed with traffic, churning out clickbait headlines and sensationalist stories just to boost their numbers. It’s a nightmare, right? Well, for some top journalists and news organizations, it’s a reality they’re actively avoiding.
The Traffic Taboo
Newsrooms like The Verge, MIT Technology Review, and Re/code have a strict policy: traffic data is off-limits to their writers. They believe that focusing on traffic can lead to “traffic whoring” – prioritizing sensationalism and clickbait over in-depth reporting and storytelling.
The Benefits of Ignorance
According to these editors, keeping writers in the dark about traffic numbers helps them stay focused on producing quality journalism. It prevents them from chasing cheap thrills and pandering to the lowest common denominator. As Emily Atkin of The Verge puts it, “We want our writers to write for humans, not for algorithms.”
The Argument for Data
Not everyone agrees with this approach. Some argue that traffic data is essential for understanding audience engagement and optimizing content. They believe that writers need to know what their readers are interested in and how they’re interacting with their work.
Different Strokes for Different Folks
Different organizations have different approaches to traffic data. The Verge prohibits writers from accessing it altogether, while Re/code discourages them from focusing on it but acknowledges its importance in headlines. Gawker and Business Insider, on the other hand, measure everything and believe it improves audience engagement.
A Middle Ground
It’s possible to be aware of traffic numbers without becoming obsessed with them. Brand journalists often monitor traffic but prioritize quality over boosting views. As John Herrman of The New York Times says, “We don’t think about traffic in terms of ‘How do we get more of it?’ but rather ‘How do we get the right kind of traffic?’”
The Perils of Traffic Chasing
Chasing traffic for its own sake can be counterproductive. It can lead to a race to the bottom, where journalists resort to increasingly sensationalist tactics to attract eyeballs. This can damage the credibility of journalism and undermine public trust.
Bonus: Some journalists believe that traffic data can be a useful tool for understanding audience preferences, but it should never be the sole driver of content creation. As Forbes contributor Jeff Bercovici says, “Taste should not be overridden by traffic. Traffic should inform taste.”
Ultimately, the question of whether or not journalists should have access to traffic data is a complex one. There are valid arguments on both sides. But one thing is clear: the pursuit of traffic should never come at the expense of quality journalism.
Frequently Asked Questions:
Q: Why do some news organizations prohibit writers from accessing traffic data?
A: They believe it can lead to “traffic whoring” and compromise the quality of journalism.
Q: What are the benefits of sharing traffic data with writers?
A: It helps them understand audience engagement, optimize content, and make data-driven decisions.
Q: Is it possible to be aware of traffic numbers without becoming obsessed with them?
A: Yes, brand journalists often monitor traffic but prioritize quality over boosting views.
Leave a Reply