Today in greatness: The BBC tracked down an Internet troll to understand what kind of man he is nie.mn/yeJaJd
SHARE
Nieman Journalism Lab
Nieman Journalism Lab
Pushing to the future of journalism — A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

“Integrating” news and advertising

At first, I was horrified as many were at the news out of Dallas that A.H. Belo Corp. would “integrate” news and ad departments at its newspapers, including its flagship Dallas Morning News, by having some section editors at their newspapers reporting to sales managers. Would ad people control content? Yikes. I count myself among the many newsroom troops who fought wars to keep this kind of thing from happening.

But as I thought about it a little more, it occurred to me that this is really just another case of the dead-tree news business trying to catch up to what’s going on in the online world. Thanks to our new friend the algorithm, editorial and advertising content are inextricably linked in ways that were never possible with the printed page.

In this new world, online journalists might think they can publish any stories they want. But if the stories don’t have the right keywords — or, heaven forbid, if they contain words blacklisted by advertisers — they won’t sell. And if the stories don’t sell ads, the publication, however high-minded its editors, will cease to exist. There’s really not much room to escape from that reality — at least as long as the publication’s first duty is to turn a profit for its owners.

Nothing wrong with making a profit. But the close connection can preclude online publications from pursuing some topics with the same depth and vigor as did newspapers of yore — for example, homelessness, poverty, or other social ills that don’t have a natural appeal to advertisers. And if other publishers take their cue from the leadership at Belo, that might not be the case for newspapers going forward.

In my mind, this is exactly the space where the nonprofit model fills a need that grows with every cancelled newspaper subscription. In a world where algorithms supplant human judgment, it can provide a needed buffer that protects the public interest.

                                   
What to read next
twitter-bird-censor-cc
Mark Coddington    February 3, 2012
Plus: News Corp.’s growing scandal and Rupert Murdoch’s Twitter candor, the hazards of Facebook Subscribe, and the rest of the week’s must-reads.
  • Pingback: Dallas Blog, Daily News, Dallas Politics, Opinion, and Commentary FrontBurner Blog D Magazine » Blog Archive » At the DMN, Sales Folk Rule the Roost Ctd., Ctd.

  • http://jonathanstray.com Jonathan Stray

    “In a world where algorithms supplant human judgment…”

    What this statement misses is that the algorithms are not supplanting human judgement, they are designed to extend it. The ad space on a page containing a particular key word is valuable not because an abstract and arbitrary “algorithm” says it is, but because literally millions of advertisers have been competing in an auction to buy space on pages containing that keyword.

    The algorithm is just a way of keeping track of the score, but the scores still come from humans.

    Ultimately, what advertisers pay for is consumer attention. If you can reliably deliver that, you have an ad-based business. If your users would prefer to spend time on Facebook than interact with your news application, you do not.

  • http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com SocraticGadfly

    Jonathan, your observation reminds me of a Spock quote from the original Star Trek.

    “A machine makes a fine servant but a terrible master.” Well, the algorithm, combined with Google text ads, has become a pretty terrible master.

    Jim, as for touting the nonprofit model, how many people will pay the tip jar? What is it with PBS and NPR, 5 percent of viewers/listeners, if that much?

  • http://jonathanstray.com Jonathan Stray

    Gadfly:

    Newspapers are famous for ignoring the wishes of advertisers. Or not, depending on the historical case and some combination of the morals and financial state of the publication. I don’t see how computerized ad auctions change this.

    If journalists had invented keyword ad auctions I’m sure that Murdoch would be touting them as the Best. Thing. Evar. right now.

    As to terrible masters: I hear the industrial revolution was unpleasant too.

    (insert smiley for “wincing”)

  • http://toughloveforx/blogspot.com Michael J

    I think the problem with the old framing of news v advertising is brough to the fore with ”

    “same depth and vigor as did newspapers of yore — for example, homelessness, poverty, or other social ills”

    Yes there are some great examples of this. But I don’t think it makes sense to apply this value to “newspapers” in general.

    On the contrary, the deepest long term investigative reporting comes from partisans. The Obama team supplied great opposition research to the press. Facts and figures. Media Matters does consistent reporting on the “right wing” media an vica versa. The new value is to sift through the stuff and see which sotry makes more sense.

    Before the mass market, journalism was about looking at the days events through a consistent well understood point of view. Perhaps in the coming days of massive collections of niche markets, the adverts and the news will be what “people like us” will find interesting.

  • Pingback: This week in media musings: More Murdoch fallout, and Dallas tears down that wall | Mark Coddington