Online Media Cultist

Web producer, writer, online media cultist. That's how I roll.

Using smart content aggregation and smart people networks to beat back the over coverage plague

Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0, one of the crazy-smartest people writing about the interwebs and what-it-all-means today, continues his exploration of the over coverage of breaking news stories with a piece called The Declining Value Of Redundant News Content On The Web. In this case, Karp uses the Microsoft-Yahoo non-merger aftermath as a means to display how “it’s a problem to have 2,000 stories about the SAME THING,” showing a numbing sampling of Google News results as a visual example of how many publishers offer nearly the same thing about the same story.

I agree that this over coverage creates a glut of stories that are nearly identical to one another, that it presents a disservice to readers who are trying to make sense of it all. But I think it’s important to explore why publishers jump on the bandwagon in the first place. Karp likens mass coverage of breaking news stories to 100 newspapers and 50 TV stations covering a factory shutdown in one single Midwest city. It’s an interesting analogy, but I’m not sure that it quite works.

The global nature of the web coupled with a 24/7 publishing environment creates a never ending chase for page views and ad revenues. In other words: publishers aren’t all covering the same story to provide a public service; they’re doing it because there’s a marketplace for huge stories – massive interest for a brief window of time – and everyone is desperately trying to cut themselves in on a piece of the action. That doesn’t mean that everyone will get rich doing this, but obviously there’s some payoff in hopping on the bandwagon.

The conclusion that Karp comes to is that everyone should “BE ORIGINAL.” Of course, this is harder said than done, and everyone will have a different definition of “original.” Scott likes to use Google News when showing examples of over coverage. And Google News is a great news search engine.

But I would argue that “the answer” – if there’s indeed an answer to this problem – is smart content aggregators and smart people networks to help individuals filter out what is the most important, the most original, the most valuable stories in a fluid environment.

The best example I can think of in terms of a smart content aggregator is Techmeme, as well as Memeorandum when it comes to general news and politics. Mixing in individual trusted websites and blogs along with a smart content aggregator or two is a great way to stay on top of breaking stories without getting lost in a sea of sameness.

And what I mean by smart people networks: this can come in many forms, but I’m particularly thinking about Twitter and Friendfeed when it comes to breaking tech and online stories. Building trusted friend/contact networks allows links to get distributed from trusted people to individuals in real time. Social networking sites like Facebook and instant messaging applications like AIM or GTalk can also provide a basis for a smart people network.

So in conclusion I don’t see the deluge of over coverage ending anytime soon. The potential to get in on the action is simply too tempting for publishers. Or, alternatively, many publishers will feel like they’re not legitimate if they don’t write something about a story that everyone else is talking about.

However, over coverage can be combated through a combination of smart content aggregators and smart people networks.

Post Metadata

Date
May 6th, 2008

Author
Eric Berlin

Category
OMC

Tags

Trackback URI

Comments RSS

  • Another thing: content networks just figure throwing out a bunch of stories on a given topic has an evergreen benefit for search. Down the road when someone searches for this, they're betting they will be better off to have the story as opposed to not having it. Oversaturating is a problem they're willing to have today given the benefits of tomorrow.
  • Right -- there are a lot of benefits for publishers to say "more is more." This will never change, so I think the smart info consumer has to take a look at ways to suss out the good stuff.
  • CyndyA
    You know, I read Scott's piece, and he specifically used the Microhoo blow-up as the example, which is misleading. That was a story that every blogger HAD to comment on lest readers wonder if the blogger was asleep at the wheel. It was a huge story in the Web world, and the insane amount of space it took up on Techmeme last weekend was to be expected. But using it as an example of "over coverage" is pointless. Why are bloggers supposed to act differently than traditional media? If the SF Chronicle and the NYT and WaPo all covered that same story and the WSJ ignored it, people would wonder what on earth was going on. The same thing applies here. Not every reader subscribes to 800+ feeds. But we keep trying to apply the experiences of the super-informed to the typical user and there is no correlation.
  • Hmm... I actually think it's a good example of what he's trying to prove, but I get that you have a different take: that there are many angles to any "huge" story, that every blogger reserves the right to cover whatever they want in whichever way they want, that regular readers of a blog that, for example, covers online business trends would be insane not to cover this particular story, and so on.

    And I don't disagree with any of that. I would simply second Scott's call to "be original," to essentially create valuable content that doesn't waste online space or readers' time. And secondly, I'd argue that smart aggregators and smart people networks are increasingly important in helping to sort out what's important, what's unique, what's special, what's valuable, and so on.
  • CyndyA
    There is a definite tendency to regurgitate news items and press releases with some blogs, but I think there is a conflict between the idea of overcoverage while at the same time saying be original. Whenever you are covering breaking news, you are never sure who else is going to cover the story nor what their take on it will be until the dust settles. I was amused when some of the other blogs floated a theory that Microsoft might pursue AOL after that Microhoo glut, when I had expressed that thought in my post as the news was breaking. The idea that Yahoo thought they were in great shape to be high-fiving after the deal fell apart and then be left without either the Google ad deal or a potential merger with AOL.

    I also think that overcoverage should be defined differently. As I said, that initial story was huge, and SHOULD be rightly covered by everyone. To really view overcoverage, though, following Techmeme snapshots over the next 72 hours would have been more telling (and made a better point I think) in the number of blogs that repeatedly appeared there beating the horse to death. You'd find that we had one article in that first burst, but none following, because there was other news to be looking at, and I'd already expressed my opinions rather than drag them out over three days of over-analyzing and reporting every sneeze out of either party.
  • I think you bring up a good point: everyone is going to have a different definition of coverage -- there are likewise stories each day that people feel aren't covered *enough*, like Ron Paul's supporters, for instance.

    I'm not sure if "everyone" should cover the biggest stories; I'm not really convinced either way. Personally, I try to write about stories that I feel I have something to contribute to. Sometimes that will be a hot story on techmeme, and other times not. In fact, I like doing a mix.

    But everyone's different, every website and blog is different, with different goals and metrics for success and so on.

    And just to reiterate my original point: there's always going to be LOTS of coverage (whether it's "over" or or just on the money) of big stories, so what I find interesting are the platforms and services and networks that are helping people to make sense of it all.
  • Your observations are quite true!its quite annoying to literally read the same thing over and over from different websites.That unfortunately is and will continue to be the curse of the internet!
  • Your observations are quite true!its quite annoying to literally read the same thing over and over from different websites.That unfortunately is and will continue to be the curse of the internet!
blog comments powered by Disqus
← Creative destruction and the online video gold rush
The online video monetization equation (or, how do you make money on this stuff?) →




Privacy