In a recent article the very idea of Suite 101 was brought into question and dubbed ‘Churnalism’ – churning out article after article for web copy and content rather than any real journalistic or literary merit.
While the piece itself included comments from both sides, the tone was overall towards the negative end of the debate’s spectrum; the question is, is it deserved? Are sites that produce articles for the Internet wholly negative in nature, exploitative to writers and not worth the HTML they are written on?
Web Writing and Content
The Internet has spawned a huge number of articles, blogs and given a blank canvas to many ‘amateur’ writers who’s opinions and ideas would not have seen the light of day even ten years ago. This is due in part to the open nature of the web and the increase in sites that provide forums and spaces for such content on an ‘interest’ level; i.e. sites of special interest from pet health to sci-fi enthusiasts discussing and writing about their chosen subject.
However, larger and more commercial article sites are for the most part a by-product of the way the Internet (and search engines in particular) work. Among these sites there are two broad categories: websites that create revenue themselves and those that boost the revenue of other sites.
Self-revenue creating sites (such as Suite 101) work in partnership with the pay-per-click advertisements that are endemic throughout the web. They either take a percentage of the ad revenue that advertisers pay the search engine provider or, in some cases, take a smaller percentage of any sales direct from posted ads (in some cases they get a percentage based on click through rate compared to bounce rate). SEO jargon aside, you click on an ad and the website gets a small amount of money.
The second type of site is a repository of articles, blogs and forums which are designed to help affiliated sites. Most will be thinly veiled sales pitches or ‘news’ stories linked to products the affiliate site sells, and the whole point is to boost the affiliated site’s search engine ranking with the use of keywords, anchor texts and some in-depth SEO. Often these articles are of little interest and are wholly designed around the idea of boosting site rankings with links.
Churnalism
While both types of site produce vast amounts of articles and revenue in one way or another, the second tend to be more ‘soulless’, if such a qualitative phrase can be applied. Given that they are simply link sites usually written by trained SEO writers, the latter type of site articles will often be casually researched offerings with little genuine interest in their subject matter by the writer; the former tend to be the opposite.
That said, the point remains that both rapidly produce many articles for money. There can be no defence for every single article written, and to make one would be absurd and counter productive. The problem occurs when differentiating the type of journalism, article or essay writing involved from that read in print or in online newspaper content. And that’s incredibly hard to do.
The three areas of disquiet seem to be the speed and number of articles written, the payment the writers receive for their work and whether or not such writing is journalism or of any journalistic worth.
Writing Fast and Often for Money
Most if not all news sources in print or in online articles are there for a dual purpose; to inform and to create revenue. Those few that are not to create revenue are more often than not publicly run (e.g. the BBC) or have a specific bias or agenda to get across.
It is impossible to argue against the simple equation that ‘a greater number of interesting/eye catching articles = more ad clicks = higher revenue’. But there is a very grey and blurred dividing line between this and ‘number of interesting/eye catching articles = greater circulation/readership = higher revenue’. With newspaper’s online content increasing almost exponentially the difference is becoming more and more semantic.
How Writers are Paid for Their Work
One person’s Murakami is another person’s Mills and Boon, and you can love Charlie Brooker or Stephanie Flanders and decry Woodward and Bernstein.
No matter your views on writing and content, getting paid for writing and how much writing is worth are similarly subjective. What is considered ‘good non-fiction writing’ and how much it is worth are linked and not objectively quantifiable.
So how is this applicable to online writing? One criticism of online writing is that it exploits the writer. However, any legitimate situation that involves a writer being paid for their work will have open and straightforward conditions. Writers can’t claim to be exploited or duped if they know the terms involved and agree to them. In freelance writing the high competition for work and the supply of writers means that pay is often very low, but this is understood in freelance work as much as pay rates are in any other industry.
Journalistic Worth
So the difference between ‘churnalism’ and ‘proper journalism’ is harder to define than one might like. Professionalism in terms of citation, quotation and references is different from actual worth. An op-ed piece can have few citations other than personal thoughts and ideas, but they can have great literary and journalistic worth.
As a freelance writer as well as a features writer for a newspaper, the difference between ‘professional’ journalist and the Internet article writer is often hard to pin down. As previously stated, defending everything on the internet and claiming it’s Pulitzer level writing is both naïve and a waste of time. However at the opposite end of the spectrum, polemic and sweeping arguments against Internet articles and sites can be seen as arch or even snobbish. Getting a balance is not easy, but needs to take into account all viewpoints.
James Barry - James Barry is a freelance writer, director and producer. He has worked in a huge range of jobs from the esoteric to the mundane
Join the Conversation