Over longer periods of time we come to subconsciously take on the qualities and attitudes of the information we consume.
It pays, therefore, to give some thought to the incentives facing the producers of that information.
News sources funded by advertising face very different incentives to those that directly charge their consumers. The former are incentivised to maximise clicks, as their bottom lines come directly from what advertisers pay per CPM—the cost per thousand impressions of an advert. More thousands of views, more dollars.
We know what that incentivises. Rumourmongering, since making up something fantastical is sure to drive traffic. Listicles, since of course everyone does want to know 29 ways to get cheap airfares that airlines don’t want you to know about. And, more generally, shoddy content, since incisive writing wins only Pulitzers rather than page views.
By paying for news, you are aligning your interests with those of the news source. You want quality journalism that cares about the world and cares about what you consume. The news organisation only makes a profit by providing that.
If you are one of those people who complain about the quality of journalism but consume it for free online, you are part of the problem. Your actions drive producers’ decisions about what to produce—yes, even that click on your trackpad.
Note: The print news business is capital intensive (printing presses, delivery vans etc) so it is not a competitive market. It doesn’t therefore fully fit what I’m describing above—you can pay for your daily newspaper and still get shoddy writing.
The post You Are What You Read appeared first on Michael Moore-Jones.
