MediaFile

Bill Keller’s war on the Internet keeps the Times down

By Alex Leo
May 19, 2011

By Alex Leo

It seems every time Bill Keller takes pen to paper (or hand to keyboard) these days it’s to express displeasure with some aspect of the Internet. Last week he tweeted “#TwitterMakesYouStupid. discuss.” Without delving into the irony of using the trappings of the Web to attack it, you can see this man is spoiling for a fight. Ever since Keller started his column in the Hugo-Lindgren-revamped Sunday Times magazine, it’s been clear he’s swinging at Arianna Huffington. (Full disclosure: Before coming to Reuters I was a senior editor at the Huffington Post.)

In his first such column, he called The Huffington Post, and aggregators in general, “pirates” and  “counterfeiters.” This level of vitriol is something Keller normally reserves for despots and the Bush White House, so why the exception here? Yes, HuffPo is nipping at the NYT’s toes to become the most widely-read news site on the Web, and yes, Huffington has poached some of Keller’s top talent in recent months, but the truth is that part of Keller’s animus must come from the knowledge that he helped create this monster of a site by refusing to engage with the Internet on the Internet’s terms. It’s not just Keller who ceded ground to The Huffington Post—it’s the news publishing world as a whole which, like the music industry, didn’t revolutionize fast enough and saw a new entity arise to classify their content.

To be fair to Keller, he’s right about a few things. Many of the editors Huffington claimed to employ pre-AOL were really content producers more than journalists—they made slideshows, polls, quizzes, they wrote headlines for AP stories, added images to blogs, embedded videos and aggregated outside news. With the influx of AOL money, Arianna has started to do what she always wanted: Hire prestigious journalists and bloggers and build an empire that earns as much respect as it does page views. This in no way means the page views will come from the respectable journalism—my guess is that Peter Goodman brings in 1/10th the traffic of a kitten-posting associate editor who earns 1/10th his salary does, but they serve different purposes and both are important for the brand.

But this begs the question: If what Arianna did was so easy why didn’t Keller do it too? Even if the NYT doesn’t want to aggregate—which is going to be an increasingly hard decision to defend—there are many things that Huffington Post did under the technological leadership of Paul Berry and the editorial chutzpah of the young content creators that made it a popular destination.

First, there’s SEO. HuffPost sometimes goes over-the-top with its content farm-y headlines, but that’s not what SEO has to be. Search Engine Optimization, used correctly, can make someone a better headline writer and is important from a reader standpoint. If you don’t have the story’s key terms in the headline or in the first sentence, a user won’t be able to find it internally or externally. NYT headlines are problematic for social as well: Having a vague, boring header may work in print, but it simply doesn’t fly on Twitter or Facebook.

Secondly, while some of the NYT blogs are great, they have not invested in or cultivated blog stars. They have no Yglesias, Klein, Linkins, etc, and their columnists aren’t really good stand-ins as they don’t interact with the Web the way bloggers do. (The notable exception to this is Paul Krugman whose blog is frequently updated and often cited.) This may stem from Keller’s distaste for aggregation and blogging by extension. As Felix Salmon wrote on this site:

The biggest thing that’s missing in the journalistic establishment is people who are good at finding all that great material, and collating it, curating it, adding value to it, linking to it, presenting it to their readers. It’s a function which has historically been pushed into a blog ghetto, and which newspapers and old media generally have been pretty bad at.

Lastly, (and most importantly) the Times has fallen behind in product development. Yes, their design is one of the best, their slideshows are gorgeous and their interactive graphics are unparalleled but they don’t take enough risks with the site itself and therefore lack several traffic boosting features. They’re missing good internal link promotion (as Felix Salmon said “the NYT page is like walking into a library, while the HuffPo page is like walking through Times Square”), social integration (Twitter widgets, lists and editions populate HuffPost, those things are rare on nytimes.com), and community engagement (the news flows one way).

While having brunch with an ex-Times employee in January she said to me “we weren’t allowed to read the Huffington Post—they say it’s the least reliable source on the Internet.” That summed it up for me: We don’t like their content model so we’re going to ignore what they’re doing right. The hermetic nature of the Times just doesn’t work for a web company, and in the juxtaposition to the Huffington Post, nothing becomes clearer. If Keller had embraced the nature and demands of the Web five years ago, the Huffington Post might not be as big as it is today.

Comments
4 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Re: “But this begs the question:” — so you are saying that for an assertion the conclusion is implicitly included in the premises? I think you have used this phrase incorrectly… http://bit.ly/aCtKJ

Posted by resinaus | Report as abusive
 

“While having brunch with an ex-Times employee in January she said to me ‘we weren’t allowed to read the Huffington Post—they say it’s the least reliable source on the Internet.’”

Should we infer that the New York Times feels the user-generated content on Wikipedia is more reliable and stable than the edited content on Huffington Post?

Where do Times reporters turn for their research? I’m not sure I can handle the truth of the matter. Thank Goodness I don’t get my news from the Times (or the HuffPost or Wikiepedia).

Posted by Michaelm1 | Report as abusive
 

I used to work at the Times and at one company-wide meeting Keller gave a 10 minute speech on why the Times format is better than blogs. No thought to the fact that there are blogs on NYTimes.com or that the two can co-exist. Regardless of his labored attempts to embrace the Web, he is an old school journalist, wistful for the “good old days” of one-way editorial communication and will never fully get the Web. That’s why they need to replace him with someone who truly buys into the Web. But to do that, senior management would have to as well, and they don’t. They just pay lip service to it and will never embrace it fully themselves.

Posted by jjbb | Report as abusive
 

#TwitterMakesYouStupid Discuss. My comment didn’t show up @nytimes, or my “User Account Banned” – ? @BostonPhoenix

Thanks to @whet @ The 312 – Chicago and “The New York Times’s Bill Keller comes to bury Twitter…” http://bit.ly/iA8xeY

Best of all, @psychcentral – “Psychology and mental health information and support…” and “8 Reasons Why Twitter Can Make You Happy” http://bit.ly/jDLTHY

Perhaps, Mr. Keller is just using one of the world’s first social networks – gossip!?

Bill Keller @nytkeller view full profile → 21 Tweets 130 Following 19,413 Followers 872 Listed Executive (((#Twitter #disabilities))) Editor – The New York Times.

Posted by dbobsnodgrass | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/