Yesterday was the worst day in the history of news.
First, pretty much every newsroom in the United States shut down so that everyone could watch two escaped llama run around Arizona. Then, for those lucky enough to tear themselves away from the llama madness, there was the whole what-color-is-the-dress optical illusion thing. (I hesitate to call the dress hoopla a “story.” It was just a thing.)
Now, I don’t object to soft news or silly crap in my Facebook feed. I’m all for being entertained or puzzled or amazed. And I know by the time you read this, the llama-and-dress backlash will be in full swing.
But–holy crap — did the media ever lose perspective. Business Insider, as of this moment, has seven different posts on the dress thing. The Washington Post ran a llama story online that had a sextuple byline and an interactive infographic. That’s essentially 40 man-hours of reporting at one of the nation’s premier newspapers wasted pasting fluffy animal GIFs.
This frustrates the hell out of flacks. Those of us in media relations require a thriving, curious media to do our job. But a world in which any clickbait distraction is “news,” is one in which I’m going to lose. It’s one where companies, rather than trying educate on the issues, will put their best minds into crafting content-free, hashtag-laden newsjacking tweets.
It’s not just that my news is being crowded out by whatever triggers newsroom ADHD. It’s that this is a dumb and destructive habit for media outlets to get into. When everyone is chasing the same news, especially news that doesn’t make anyone smarter, we squander a lot of resources. And we squander them at the exact moment when there’s a lot of bitching and moaning about how news is not longer economically viable.
Here’s a tip: if you want to stay viable, quit trying to out-Buzzfeed Buzzfeed.
What’s the alternative? How about old-school hard news. You know whose racking up huge circulation gains? The solid Financial Times, for one, which said yesterday that year-over-year circulation rose 10 percent. You may have missed that news; it hit right before the llama thing went viral. (To the FT’s credit, I don’t believe they ran any llama stories.) And it’s no secret that the information-dense Economist has seen circulation almost double in the past decade.
Llamas are the Pixie Stix of the news business. They taste wonderful when you suck them down. But three or four of them in a row, and suddenly you’re nauseous, dazed and headed for a sugar crash. That’s where are today, and that’s not healthy for you or–in the long run–for me.
Rahat Kapur of Campaign looks at the evolution The Wall Street Journal. Kapur writes, "The transformation…
This position will be Hybrid in the office/market 3 days per week, and those days…
The Fund for American Studies presented James Bennet of The Economist with the Kenneth Y. Tomlinson Award…
The Wall Street Journal is experimenting with AI-generated article summaries that appear at the top…
Zach Cohen is joining Bloomberg Tax to cover the fiscal cliff and tax issues on…
Larry Avila has been named interim editor for Automotive Dive, an Industry Dive publication. He…
View Comments
Frankie, Frankie, Frankie... Your lack of perspective never ceases to amaze. As if the only thing separating your client's newsless pitch from a spot on the network news is a couple of runaway llamas. Are the llamas and the dress frivolous stories? Yes. Do the media (including the FT and the Economist) rely too heavily on click bait? Absolutely, and it's even more frustrating to us journalists pushing actual stories. But the challenge--to us and to you--is not to whine about what the public is interested in, but to find compelling stories and frame them in such a way that they'll resonate at least a fraction as much as the llamas and dresses of the world (btw, I initially saw white and gold, but now I can see the blue...)
Eh, two points:
1. This is a business that seeks to both inform and entertain. The apparent resonance of the dress and llama stories actually proves that companies were right to devote some amount of resources to it, despite its silliness.
2. I don't understand why this should be frustrating to flacks at all. Many (not all) of you offer stuff with the nutritional value of pixie stix that ALSO tastes like crap. You're not failing because the news is focused on "entertaining" stories. You're failing because you neither inform nor entertain.
Spot on.
You know whose audience is not up: NYT, WaPo, CNN and NBC.