Originally Posted by Enfilade
Noteworthy was already called out for the BS it was in the feedback thread ages ago. It's begging bowl journalism.
this was a post i made elsewhere about this concept:
i do agree that i'm not 100% comfortable with the readership being the primary director of what topics the journalists focus on.
however, this sort of calculation probably does happen out of sight in newsrooms anyway. these news organisations know what drives clicks (because that's what the likes of the journal depend on), and know which stories are juicy and will be read and commented on.
you can see it with the irish times (one of the organisations i've a subscription to, one of their cheaper options); you can see how their online presence on social media sites differs from their print edition, and how they drive page views that way.
but when i get the saturday print copy of the IT, i immediately throw out the sport section, and barely touch one or two others. so in a way, i'm paying (in part) for a service i'm not using. the concept here is the polar opposite of that phenomenon, focus exactly on what the readership want.
the interesting thing about this concept is that it changes the monetisation of these stories from a reactive one, as per above, to a proactive one. instead of writing 10 stories and turning a loss, so to speak, on eight of them, try to place yourself in a position when you're writing a story knowing from the outset that it's paid for itself.
and i would be horrified to think anyone (especially the noteworthy crew) would consider this to be the future of journalism; it might complement 'normal' journalism, but should not be a replacement for it.
as mentioned, this may well fail, because the concept may not have enough malleability to address the shortcomings. and they'll probably get it wrong before they get it right, but such is life.