What started as a simple lunchtime read today ended up down a rabbit hole. It all started with Millie Bobby Brown. Like many women, I applaud her for calling out the media on their response to her appearance. I’m not going to go over it as it’s a tale as old as time, and it has been covered by practically every quality, and dubious-quality, mainstream media outlets.
This blog isn’t about unrealistic ideals applied to women only or even misogyny – I’d need more space than this blog provides for that. This is about the challenge that the media face in delivering stories that deliver both great journalism but also clicks, page reads and engagement.
Shortly after the Millie Bobby Brown story broke, Prolific North wrote an article quoting a North West-based reporter, who asked not to be named due to their role at a major publisher, who stated “I hate most of what I’m asked to write. The minute a story is trending, we have to find angles and reactions to it regardless of whether there is anything to say.
“Most of it is based on pretty flimsy stuff, stuff taken off social, and we all swarm on it, and whoever comes at it in the most left-field way seems to win. And usually, that ends up being a pretty negative stance and then everyone jumps on that. It’s a big circle.
“Page views are king, sadly, regardless of what the views are for. It’s soul-destroying.”
Yep, you read it right – “based on pretty flimsy stuff.” Yes, you expect this approach from a click bait-style tabloid. Let’s face it, it’s why and how the Daily Mail became the biggest circulating daily newspaper in the UK. ‘Leggy display’ anyone? But what does it mean for quality, well-researched and respected journalism? And what is to blame?
30 years ago, newspapers sold. Yes, there was fierce competition for breaking news and front-page lead stories but in the main, a newspaper’s audience bought the paper loyally and were rewarded with knowing the type (political alignment) of news they were going to receive. The cover price and advertising kept publishing finances robust. In those days consumers were even categorised by the newspaper they read – it was obvious and evident – and marketers used AB consumer segmentation codes to decide where to spend their advertising budget. But today, this is no longer the case.
Now the fierce competition comes from page views, engagement and the virality (is that a word?!) of a story rather than whether it’s well researched, meaningful and thought provoking. I know that this is obvious and has been the case since the advent of the internet as a means to deliver news, but it still is sad. As print media continues to shrink, quality journalism continues to suffer. We see it everywhere. Even that bastion of quality reporting, the BBC, is using more and more sensationalist language in its reporting. So is this a race to the bottom?
I still believe that there is a place for quality journalism. Stories that are based on truth and fact, that are well researched and well written. And I hope that you agree. But if there is a lesson to be learned, it’s that the stories that we pitch to the media need to be well thought out. They can’t be sales fluff, meaningless corporate content – they need to engaging and deliver something that people want to read – and drive clicks and page views. The media is awash with content – so yours needs to stand out.
