Years ago, in college, I went to a presentation by a big internet company, as part of a recruitment event. At the time, I was working at the college newspaper, and the talk was about their “front page”. They said it was the biggest news site at the time, so I was excited.
The bulk of the talk was technical. But the presenter mentioned that one of the biggest challenges was keeping abreast of what they called the “National Enquirer effect”. The problem, as she described, was this. The main goal of the front page is to drive traffic to other properties; and the system was always optimizing both the selection of content on the front page and its ordering based on raw clicks. He said, while no one admits to it, content with the best-clickthrough rate was always “bikini women”, so left alone, algorithms would turn the front page into National Enquirer. Ironically, this means that no one would visit them, over a long enough period. They said they were trying to fix this by some longer term optimizations, but for now, there was essentially a team for each locale that monitored the site, and kept it “clean”.
Couple days ago, I saw a tweet about a NYTimes wedding post. It said “Trevor George asked Morgan Sarner out to dinner 10 nights in a row, and won her heart”. The person, whose retweet I saw, said she’d probably get a restraining order. It was funny, I “liked it” but it seemed odd that NYTimes would promote such creepy behavior. So I clicked on the link. It turns out the groom did not just ask her out 10 days in a row, but took her out as such. It’s a minor difference, between the text in the tweet but the actual content, but it was enough to get that person to retweet a mock of it, and more ironically to get me to click on it.
Ev Williams, the co-founder of Twitter and Medium, likened the algorithms that govern the internet as to a Deus ex machina that provides you with the most extreme of what you want; you think car crashes are interesting? Here’s a pile up! It feels true, and definitely explains the long-winded global nausea.
Looking at it another, though, this is just specific application of the paperclip maximizer. Instead of natural resources of the earth, we are just mining minds. And instead of making more paperclips, we are just making some people in Bay Area richer. I live in the Bay Area, for now, so of course I shouldn’t complain.
But what’s really missing from the debate is how technology has really failed to find a way to attract attention of its readers without sacrificing the content. And while some of it is done automatically, some of it is self inflicted.
There are structural and economic explanations for the problem. Internet first destroyed the newspapers’ monopoly on advertisement. Then the glut of content came, with democratization of publishing tools, further pushing down the value of any individual work. Unbundling of pieces from the newspapers and magazines that carried them reduced the value of a brand, and in turn pieces that make up a bundle too. As social media platforms further flattened all content into same structure, be it from The New York Times or some kids from Macedonia, any semblance of product differentiation.
The number of knobs publishers have is dwindling and their editorial decisions is one of their last levers. When you are competing with so much content, and you don’t control how your content is distributed, your only option is to change your content to fit your distribution channels. Legitimate news organizations have long erected a well between “the church and the state”, or rather “editorial and the advertising” but at least in terms of packaging, the wall no longer exists. The only difference is that it’s not he advertisers that determine your content now, but your distributors.
I saw this first hand too. At Digg, we would casually tell big publishers and famous individual alike that if they worded headlines a specific way, they would get more clicks. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t. Google has entire guides, mostly technical but with editorial hints, on how to help you get more traffic. Facebook does it too, but slightly for different reasons. They want people to click on the content, but not too much, so publishers better avoid clickbait titles. And of course, most publishers, especially smaller ones that do not have big subscription revenues or rich patrons to back them, get in line.
This is not a jab at newspapers, although it is that a bit. My real qualm is that we still don’t have a proper way to consume the news where the hook doesn’t dictate the content. We built search engines that can scour the entire web in less than a second, but I still can’t figure out whether a piece of content is worth my time, or is just fluff. I can take a virtual tour across the globe, but I cannot tell what a federal policy change means for me as a resident in California. The primary problem is funding and revenue, but is there a lack of imagination as well?
I also don’t know if the solutions to these problems will exist on the supply side, or the demand side. Probably, it will need to be both. Publishers need ways to authenticate and brand their content, and consumers need reading experiences that respect those. Moreover, consumers need a better way to find and consume content that respects the integrity of it, and not let it be violated for distribution.
There are a lot of attempts to build a new stack for consuming news. Services like Blendle attempt to fix monetization by removing the hurdle of micropayment, and also consolidate subscriptions. Facebook and Google try various things too; AMP is a way to clear up the reading experience (and cynically move more of the content to Google servers), Facebook’s Instant Articles is a more locked-in and heavy-handed way of doing the same. Both Facebook and Google also want to help publishers gain more subscribers, and the subscribed users to have more fluid, integrated experiences on the web with their own platforms.
And of course, publishers, try their hands too. One of my personal favorites is what Axios does, with their telegraphic, lightly structured way of presenting their content. It feels respectful of my time as a reader, cuts through the fluff without sounding too clinical. I wish more publishers experimented with radically different, but still thoughtful ways of producing and presenting content like them.
At that talk I went, they said one of the ideas was to have a fluff lever; slide it to one side and you get practically smut. Slide it all the way to the other, it’s all dreary politics, which wasn’t smut at the time. As far as I know, they never launched it.
Internet has undermined, intentionally or not, the workings of all news organizations. It took over their advertising, their users’ attention, and now a few companies inadvertently are guiding more of the content too. The different responses to this change lie across the political spectrum. What is common, though, is that the problems will not go away, and the economics that govern newspapers will not go back to where they were. But maybe, there are ways to attack this problem with technology, as well as with policy.
I am not sure if that is the answer, but maybe it could be worth trying.