What people say they read online vs. What they really read online

Do people who say they read The Eco­nom­ist online really read The Eco­nom­ist online?

The paper’s Andreas Kluth has a great post that digs below the ‘what we say/what we do’ BS. (In the UK, ever wondered why so many people say they watch Chan­nel 4 News but then don’t actu­ally watch it?)

Here’s Andreas:

I keep think­ing about a young lady named Rebecca…

She was, I think, an MBA stu­dent at Stan­ford, obvi­ously super-bright and media-savvy, busy, ambi­tious, and all the rest of it. They asked her what her home page was. It was The Eco­nom­ist. So far so good.

She said a few more of the things that my col­leagues and I tend to hear when people first dis­cover that we work for The Eco­nom­ist. You know: global, intel­li­gent, cos­mo­pol­itan, and things along those lines. Then Rebecca vis­ibly got bored with her own bullshit.

So how much of The Eco­nom­ist do you actu­ally read? her inter­viewer asked her.

Hardly any­thing, it turns out. And now Rebecca held forth: To be hon­est, she really only has The Eco­nom­ist as her home page because, well, that’s what one does in her circles. But she feels no con­nec­tion to it at all. To her, the tone is that of some robot-like gen­teel alien preach­ing to her about what she should know for the next cock­tail party…

[W]here does Rebecca go (if not, appar­ently, to her own home page)? She named a few sites. But the one she seems to “depend on” most, cur­rently, is The Sar­tori­al­ist.

…Offi­cially The Eco­nom­ist, but really The Sar­tori­al­ist. A site run by one man who

  • loves his subject–fashion in the world’s cos­mo­pol­itan cities
  • takes art­ful and intim­ate pictures
  • cares not a hoot about whether any­body agrees with his taste, and
  • is rewar­ded by a grow­ing and steady fol­low­ing (largely from the same demo­graphic as The Eco­nom­ist’s) for pre­cisely that authenticity…

Here we are at The Eco­nom­ist – hav­ing pow­wows about the future, bask­ing in our no-bylines eccent­ri­cit­ies – while the Rebec­cas out there politely keep us as their homepage, then bug­ger off to some other place that “gets” it. We would be fool­ish, and soul­less, not to pay atten­tion to Rebecca.

2 thoughts on “What people say they read online vs. What they really read online

  1. Adrian:
    Unfor­tu­nately, the Rebec­cas of the world get their news from writers who don’t do the schol­ar­ship, many of whom are imposters in cos­tume designed by the Mr. Sar­tori­al­ists in the media world.

    This would explain why people in Wash­ing­ton think (or know) that the gen­eral pub­lic is unin­formed and not likely to become informed. Repubs, Demo­crats and the Pres­id­ent all knew without any ques­tion that bonuses were to be paid even under the bail­out to AIG as the topic was spe­cific­ally dis­cussed in com­mit­tee and yet when it became pub­lic they all acted as if they are dis­gus­ted and had no idea; and the pub­lic laps it up and gets dis­gus­ted. And if they didn’t know where the money was going to go, then I am dis­gus­ted. By in large, the press doesn’t present such inform­a­tion; it’s like they are addicted to the sound­bites of politi­cians and just regur­git­ate them to us.

    The lack of account­ab­il­ity is some­thing that both sides of the aisle count on and are there­fore loath to chal­lenge each other in the pub­lic square.

    There is great oppor­tun­ity for journ­al­ists to do the right thing, call things as they really are, ruffle a few feath­ers and put the truth back into report­ing. They, indeed, have also become the imposters, see lengthily dis­cus­sions on Kluth’s blog and as described by Don Hen­ley in Dirty Laundry.

    We are going to be in even big­ger trouble if the cyn­icism and dis­trust of gov­ern­ment and the mar­kets con­tin­ues much further.

    Thanks for the oppor­tun­ity to comment.

    SB

  2. Should The Eco­nom­ist really pander to people who have them as their home page for van­ity, shouldn’t they con­cen­trate on ensur­ing they provide qual­ity con­tent that their cur­rent read­ers enjoy. Qual­ity will increase read­er­ship not alter­ing to try and attract read­ers that think street pho­to­graphy ‘gets’ it to a higher degree. They are sig­ni­fic­antly dif­fer­ent. Perez Hilton gets mil­lions of read­ers and is a guilty pleas­ure for a huge amount of people but that doesn’t mean The Eco­nom­ist should start tak­ing note of whether Brit­ney Spears is wear­ing under­wear today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>