May 21, 2008 03:29 PM
2,839
Enter your username and password.
New York, 6:50 PM
Tue Feb 9
57 posts in the last 24 hours
It would be too obvious as well as unreasonable to suggest that Aron Pilhofer, the New York Times's editor for interactive news, drag himself into the 21st century. Here's a more modest objective: understanding the mindset of his own colleagues. At this week's dire Mediabistro conference, Pilhofer scorned the "ridiculous" obsession of organizations such as Gawker with the popularity of individual articles: "I think we're a long way from reporters paying attention to page views." Wot?!
Sites such as Google and Digg already prioritize their news stories according to the number of links or users' votes; and magazines such as Vanity Fair and New York have become endearingly proud of the pageviews they draw when starlets are persuaded to strip. But let's put aside the breathtaking insularity of the Times exec's contention.
What about the newspaper's own journalists? Well, it is true that they don't know the pageviews on each article they byline. But they have one measure: the Times' list of the most emailed items of each day. And some Times reporters set so much store by an appearance on the list that they'll fix the numbers by emailing around an article themselves.
"It's not that everybody does it, but some do," a Times staffer confirms in email. "I know some editors will send stories around when they appear online in the evening, to hopefully boost the rankings before getting into work the next day. It's one of the few measurement sticks we have for online success, unfortunately. We're not supposed to care about the Most Popular lists. But when we get on the lists, we get congratulated."
Of course reporters care who's reading their work. They're egomaniacs—as hungry for attention in their own way as the most spotlight-hogging movie star. The New York Times may pretend that all its journalists are paid according to union scale. Its official standard of journalistic value may indeed be measured by Pulitzer juries and uptown dinner parties rather than server logs. But the internet's algorithmic calculation of worth has influenced at least the tech-savvy younger reporters—and it's absurd for Times executives such as Pilhofer to pretend the newspaper can seal itself off from the crass outside world.
Incidentally, has anyone noticed that the Most Emailed list has become more high-minded in its mix over the last few years. In 2004, the most popular article was apparently the hilariously detailed law-firm memo on the ordering of lunchtime sushi for partners. Now the lists are dominated by political commentary and investigations of the brain. Either the Times audience is reverting to type in an election year; or someone has tweaked the results to present to the Gray Lady's readers the image they want to see of themselves.
Contact information for this author is not available.
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Start a new discussion