Comments on: Truth vs. traffic: An age-old battle

By: Maggy Young

Maggy Young — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:20:40 +0000

Aw come on all ! In old media, what newspaper reports don't have spin or slant & just give a plain unbiassed account of the facts as they know them, interspersed with caveats – 'we are not 100p/c sure of this' ?
They don't because they know that would make boring reading & bloggers know that there's no point in having the best blog in the sphere with no-one reading it.
So here's where 'tension' & drawing a line in the middle comes in. It isn't the product of the blogger but the product of the readers which the blogger wants to keep. Readers want quality & trustworthy blogs, but they don't want them to be boring either.

By: Maggy Young

Maggy Young — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:20:40 +0000

By: mathewi

mathewi — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:07:02 +0000

Yeah, that's kind of what I meant by “tension” :-)

By: tonyhung

tonyhung — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:43:01 +0000

Indeed ... the whole principle echoes of how Business2 was rewarding journalists who were blogging based on traffic, and how that might influence what they were going to write.

Or, alternatively, Nick Denton's traffic-based renumeration formula for Gawker.

People act rationally. When you have a stake in things that are strictly based on eyeballs and attention, you obviously do things to get that attention, without trying to compromise your integrity -- too much.

Which is probably what you mean by "tension". :)

Cheers
t @ dji

By: antje wilsch

antje wilsch — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:39:37 +0000

Amusingly, one of our recent press releases actually got a response from a CNN Editor who said something like “love the idea overall but we're focusing on the economy right now…”