And clicks are money when it comes to publishing on the internet.

As a writer at HotAir nobody tells me what to write, how to write, or how many reads any particular post gets. That side of the business is pretty opaque to me, and I have to admit that I am a bit surprised about it. After all, it’s a business, and I just have to hope I am making money for my bosses.

But that is unusual in the publishing business. A lot of content is pushed out there, and hence there is a lot of competition for eyeballs. What ratings are to TV, clicks are to internet publishing. And the more clicks you get the more money everybody makes. Because as in TV, it’s advertisers who pay the bills.

DeFeo is closer to that end of the business, or was before he went on sabbatical. His thread was ostensibly about why so much COVID misinformation was pushed by the media, and why the hysteria was ramped up rather than tamped down, as would have been so much better for society. Socially speaking, panic is never a good thing; financially speaking (or with regard to expanding power), panic is a very good thing indeed.

So what really drives information flow on the internet?

First, let me say that this thread is not an indictment of journalists, but rather an indictment of a system that produces bad journalism. The strange thing about systems is that they perpetuate and defend themselves, even when the participants of the system do not agree.

2/30

— John W. DeFeo (@johndefeo) February 16, 2022

I sorta kinda see John’s point here, although I am far less forgiving than he. Just as I would be loathe to forgive a doctor for prescribing the wrong medication for financial reasons, I have this idealistic sense that everybody in every business would follow a code of ethics and serve their customers what they need to the best of their abilities.

Often journalists don’t, for myriad reasons. John will lay them out for you. And while I agree that you need to understand the underlying incentives that produce a bad outcome, I still think the ultimate responsibility lies with the person delivering a bad or the wrong product.

But then again, I don’t get pressure from above, so what do I know? If I did, how different would my writing be? I honestly couldn’t say. I hope I would stay true to my conscience, but if my job depended upon it would I? How different would my output be? I don’t know because I am not faced with the choice. I can only say that my life would have been more lucrative as a liberal writer than a conservative one.

Unreasonable Story Counts:

On average, the journalists that I've worked with had an expectation of producing 3-4 stories per day and one editor had 4-5 writers beneath.

This was a corporate demand, not an editorial one, and it does not allow time for top quality work.

4/30

— John W. DeFeo (@johndefeo) February 16, 2022

As somebody who does produce 6 pieces a day, I can say that my writing is effected by that. Occasionally in a bad way, but mostly not due to my temperament. I like commenting on a lot of things, and rarely is my work mostly reportorial. If my job were to convey facts reliably and in depth on breaking and/or complicated stories there is no way I could produce anything like the output I do. Nor would I excel in such a role. It doesn’t fit my temperament.

I think of it as being a renaissance man, but others may rightly think of it as being an intellectual butterfly. I am not a specialist, and many stories require them. I’ll even hand off story ideas to my colleagues not because I am not interested in them, but because they have more of the requisite skills to cover them well. I can do this because I have other things to write and don’t get assigned stories that don’t fit my skillset.

Reporters can rarely do that. So having to churn out content with only an hour or so to get up to speed doesn’t lend itself to great product.

Words Edited, Numbers Not:

In the absence of a technical editor, many stories are edited for clarity, but not for data integrity. The results are most often seen when millions/billions/trillions are confused, or when bad metric conversions slip by.

6/30

— John W. DeFeo (@johndefeo) February 16, 2022

Most of the pieces I write aren’t STEM, but when I do dive into these topics I always try to go to the source. Most secondary sources are crap, I have found, filled with errors and spin. And many of the sources–even scientific journal articles–are also crappy and biased junk. The only way to decide whether that is the case is to dive in and parse out what they are doing.

If you aren’t a specialist you will miss stuff, but in many cases it isn’t too hard to pick up the weaknesses of a study or research project. I wouldn’t call myself a science reporter because I am not, but I can tell you that a ton of science reporting is bunk. Clickbait. The example that comes immediately to mind is all the hype around the fusion ‘breakthrough” that wasn’t. It took me about 3 seconds to see it was all show and no dough, and any decent science journalist knew that to be true.

Inefficacy of Straight News:

A story that is a plain statement of facts presented without sensationalism, will, on average, receive 400-1,200 visits. This is a guaranteed financial loss for an ad-supported news website.

8/30

— John W. DeFeo (@johndefeo) February 16, 2022

Hype sells. If that fusion breakthrough were covered as mere science news, it would have been a letdown to people. It’s not that nothing new had been accomplished; it’s just that a milestone on a super long road was reached, not a breakthrough. It wasn’t nothing; it just wasn’t that much. Worthy of a journal article or a 15 second mention on the news, not days of coverage.

But there is no money to be made that way. And grant funding requires hype and promises.

Search Engine Optimization:

Many organizations rely on search engine traffic to sustain financial viability. I worked in this field for years and I believe that it is diametrically opposed to accountable journalism. Two major reasons listed below:

10/30

— John W. DeFeo (@johndefeo) February 16, 2022

 

Bullying From Sales:

I once assigned a story that, unbeknownst to me, called into question the business model of an advertiser. The head of sales screamed at me in front of the entire newsroom. Luckily, my editor defended me. Not all do.

14/30

— John W. DeFeo (@johndefeo) February 16, 2022

One thing I will say about the old dead-tree newspaper model is that sales and production truly were separate. I worked a ton of newspaper reporters over the years and never got a hint that in the news divisions (as opposed to “lifestyle,” “taste,” and other fluffy subjects) ever got pressure from sales. I haven’t either, but then my traffic is organic. I doubt I get many reads from search engine hits.

Regarding advertisers I expect that is a much more important variable on most types of sites than straight news or opinion. I know it is a huge variable when you are doing lifestyle, cooking, tech, and other types of reporting.

I have to assume that pressure from sales is immense when it comes into play. Content production of any type is ridiculously competitive, the supply of writers far outstrips demand and increases every day, and money doesn’t grow on trees. Advertisers usually pay the bills. Don’t tick them off.

Literal Lack of Boundaries:

Many newsrooms have open floor plans that can result in undue (and often, unintended, pressure).

E.g. A CEO leans on the desk of a 21-year old reporter and asks why hasn't __ been covered yet.

That story is often written, like it or not.

20/30

— John W. DeFeo (@johndefeo) February 16, 2022

The access issue is huge for reporters, and there is no getting around it if you cover news. Again, this isn’t an issue for me because I get pitched stories and don’t do gumshoe reporting, but if a reporter is covering a business or a politician they absolutely need access to succeed. Which is why so many tech blogs tend to fawn over the companies they cover. Political reporters used to have a bit more freedom to push, because politicians needed the coverage to get their message out. But as you have seen with Trump and DeSantis, the best communicators can get around reporters and it drives them nuts.

And, of course, one of the reasons reporters are so kind to the Democrats is that they socialize with them. That, too, is important access, because the Democrats are the top of the Elite pyramid. A reporter who is buddies with a top Democrat is sure to rise in prestige and eventually pay. Not so much with Republicans. So they have an incentive to kiss their rings.

Access can be everything. Ask Bob Woodward. It’s why most political reporters worked for a politician first.

Corrections Are Embarrassing:

"Soft corrections" are a way to avoid retraction. I did it early in my career. E.g. I made a mistake in my bond math; a reader writes "This doesn't make sense unless it's a zero-coupon bond." Me: "Er, yeah, that's what I meant." I didn't.

23/30

— John W. DeFeo (@johndefeo) February 16, 2022

News media have always hated corrections. In the past it was bad for the ego and the reputation; today it kills readership. Again, until I read this I had no idea. In the past that was a major incentive to get things right; today it is just an incentive to not admit error. Getting it right gets in the way of Narrative and production. So unless it costs you in some other way (a lawsuit), ignore errors.

Sensational Feedback Cycle:

Sensational stories often get sensational pageviews, which triggers more rewards from related content algorithms via companies like Outbrain and Taboola.

When sensationalism is rewarded, objectivity is punished.

27/30

— John W. DeFeo (@johndefeo) February 16, 2022

On this I assume I can plead guilty. I get paid to share my opinions, and since my opinions tend to dovetail with the readers there is a feedback cycle. Perhaps this is why I have so much freedom to write what I think? I don’t pretend to be completely objective (I tell it like I see it, but I would hope you read more than me to get a variety of perspectives!).

If you are getting your news from only one source you aren’t getting the news. Anybody who spends their day watching only one cable channel is getting a distorted view of the world, and same from only one side of the political aisle. Wild opinions sell well, and I definitely would be more circumspect about my own opinions if I were teaching in a classroom again. But you know the incentives are off when even science mags are bloviating, not covering science.

This thread is about reasons, not excuses.

Journalists have printed and amplified demonstrably false statements made by politicians and public officials. Yet, to my mind, it is journalists who have the best platform and incentive to set the record straight.

🤞

30/30

— John W. DeFeo (@johndefeo) February 16, 2022

In order to understand why things turn out as they do you have to know the incentives that lead to that outcome. Politicians lie because it benefits them. Journalists hype because it benefits them. It’s not that altruism doesn’t exist–it does. But if you are examining a human system look at the incentives first, and only look for other explanations for a phenomenon once you recognizing that it deviates from the norm in some obvious way.

In other words: follow the money. It explains most things most of the time.

In political journalism the most powerful incentive is maintaining access to power; from that flows most things. Networks make things run in all walks of life, but are especially powerful in politics. This is often true in business reporting, where an invite from Tim Cook into Apple can elevate a reporter above the pack.

If Republicans really want to punish reporters for their excessive ties to Democrats they should deny them access. So far Ron DeSantis has been successful with that strategy.

The bottom line, though, is that journalism has always been driven by incentives, but the online world has hypercharged the most negative ones. Clickbait pays, which is why Harry and Meghan are everywhere. “If it bleeds it leads” has always been true, but now you get 24/7 coverage that focuses on issues that would be on the front page for a day.

Because it sells.

Postscript: If you are interested, DeFeo has another interesting thread about how the “experts” are chosen when covering stories. Hint: it’s not because they are the best in their field or the most objective.

This now-deleted tweet is from an epidemiologist with a large following (including policymakers and journalists), a blue verification-checkmark on Twitter, and a profile including the title of "Dr" accompanied by a photo in a lab coat.

🧵1/13 pic.twitter.com/gDNStnAHBT

— John W. DeFeo (@johndefeo) March 4, 2022