Should the public influence the stories the media reports? Or
should members of the media, based on their professional judgment and
experience, determine what's worthy of reporting?
That's the focus of a recent NPR On the Media segment, in which Brent Payne, director of search engine optimization for Tribune Interactive, was interviewed. It's a fascinating question for me, as a long-term member of the media as well as someone who espouses the importance of search engine optimization.
Payne's job: to make sure articles from Tribune media receive prominent placement in Google search results. This means paying attention to Google Trends, among other things, to see what topics the public is searching for at any given moment.
So if Dennis Earl Bradford is the number one topic in Google Trends, as he is at this exact moment in time, does that mean Tribune media should be drumming up lots of coverage, in order to improve Tribune media outlets' chances of high Google ranking, which in turn will expose more people to Tribune ads?
And if so, does this mean that journalists are slowly abdicating their traditional role, of determining what the public needs to know based on the journalist's own professional judgment? Are we facing a future in which the general public--people who use Google--play an important role in deciding the stories the media reports?
When asked about SEO's role in determining which stories Tribune news outlets pursue, Payne answered: "All I'm doing is helping (trained journalists and editors) find opportunities to drive additional traffic (to Tribune Web properties) if there's reasonable content for it." Payne added that SEO and editorial were well balanced, because Tribune has "hundreds of journalists vs. a small team of SEO people."
Fair enough. I think SEO should be a consideration when making editorial decisions, both before a story is written (particularly if it's a feature article) and during the editing process. But SEO should always fall below 'the public's need to know,' 'clear, compelling content' and 'balanced reporting' on the editorial to-do list.
Which brings me to another point brought up in Payne's interview. He recommended that headline writers should keep keywords in mind. For instance, rather than announcing 'wacko Jacko's death,' a news headline proclaiming 'Michael Jackson dead' might fare better in Google search results.
From an SEO standpoint, Payne's point is well taken. A punchy but keyword-deficient headline doesn't help Google know what the story is about. And if Google isn't sure what a Web page is about, that can negatively affect the page's ranking.
And yet, I love a brief, playful headline. For an example, I just picked up a recent The New Yorker and came immediately to an article about the creative director of Burberry. It was headlined 'Check Mate,' in reference both to the UK retailer's iconic plaid design (check) and UK slang (mate). The subhead: "Burberry's working-class hero."
SEO-wise, this isn't an effective head/subhead combination. It doesn't contain much keyword juice, and thus it doesn't tell Google clearly what this is about. But it's in keeping with The New Yorker's style and voice, and it caused me to stop and try to figure out what the magazine article was about. In other words, the head and subhead did their job.
However, the title of the Web page where an abstract of this article lives is 'Burberry creative director Christopher Bailey : The New Yorker.' The page's description also includes the keywords 'profile' and 'fashion designer Christopher Bailey.' So The New Yorker's Webmaster is paying attention to keywords while its magazine editors aren't, and that's as it should be.
But what happens if print disappears? Will clever headlines vanish with it? Will we have taken one more step--a big one--toward becoming a bland, computer-driven culture?
Now
that would be worth reporting.
