This is great. Love the questions - ("When reporters become personalities, does that change how they report? When your face is your brand, do you start avoiding stories that might make you look bad") - I also think there's a sinister element in the journey to becoming a media personality in the first place. Right now, the fastest way to obtain the requisite attention and engagement to build influence is by being provocative. The algorithm, we are well-aware, does not reward thoughtful, nuanced, well-researched, and properly referenced analysis. It rewards ragebaiting.
As these established publications embrace the idea of incentivizing journalists to build personal followings, that means their 'success' may start being judged on social engagement KPIs in the same way brand social media managers are (rather than quality of reporting/writing). I'm sure this is already a thing via clickbait-y headlines etc., but adding talking heads exacerbates the situation. This will inevitably pressure them into more ragebaiting. So yes it will change how they report. And actually, rather than avoiding stories that make them look bad, it will encourage more problematic stories to provoke engagement, which further jeopardizes journalistic integrity.
The other side of provocation is some sort of engagement, right? So you're absolutely right. If the algorithm prioritizes a type of action happening, then provoking that action is the best way to enter and stay in the flywheel. Like you, i'm also curious about how success is going to be measured. I'm maybe naive, but I would hope that major outlets would want to look at something beyond the traditional social KPIs even though I know the end goal of all this is maximizing time-on-platform.
This is something I think about a lot. I once ran a podcast that got quite a large following and I stepped away when the pressure to be a brand got to be too much. At the time it seemed like the right decision, but now I wonder if becoming a "brand" is inevitable.
I'm in the same boat as you regarding this feeling of wait do I also have to influence if I want to get writing jobs in journalism? And boy, it's making some publications really awkward right now as they throw their smart, nerdy, not necessarily telegenic writers in front of video that's set up for TikTok.
There's also the question of what this does to journalism itself. When reporters become personalities, does that change how they report? --> yes. Personalities and Reporters should rarely overlap, and now it's mandatory that they overlap.
Thanks for articulating this so clearly. I also think about the time that people inevitably invest in becoming "telegenic" and what that costs their writing/research time.
I've been debating for the better part of a year now doing, like, "behind the story" stuff to talk about how a story came together in detail. Honestly, one of the big barriers to that (beyond not wanting to make selfie videos) is that I don't know how my editors at major pubs would react or if I'd be breaking some sort of rule.
Discovered this really excellent (and right up my alley/ wish-list-algo) piece because your face showed up on my feed chatting with Emily. If this is in fact the game, I hope that lots of real journalists and talented writers decide to play it.
As a former broadcast journalist I always felt the print journalists looked down on us because we were just "prompter readers". I remember one day having to train a print journalist to fill in for me at the NYSE to do live shots. She said she was ready but when it came time to do the report she froze. I felt for her. This wasn't what she signed up for. But I also loved it when she acknowledged that maybe being on camera wasn't so easy. The good news is that when print-first reporters now go on camera the expectation is a lot lower and they aren't expected to be as polished as the broadcast-first journalists.. and if all this helps journalism stay alive its a good thing.
In the ol’ broadcast days, some folks thrived in print or radio—but when they moved to TV, it became clear not everyone has that ‘it factor’ on-camera presence. Same goes for today’s digital world. Live video and video content demand a different kind of energy. Some can make the leap, others are better off sticking to text or audio-only podcast formats where they truly shine.
I think about the time component a lot. There needs to be a lot more support from newsrooms to make this work if more journalists are to become “brands.” Influencers who find success talking about news are generally doing so because they are essentially taking someone else’s reporting and providing commentary on it, so they have the capacity to spend time on the visuals, the script, the marketing etc or they are journalists who have a team of people behind them supporting the product. What happens when we are asking a junior/mid-level journalist to do story ideation, intensive sourcing and reporting and then to also go out create and present dynamic polished, but not too polished, videos ? The salaries and benefits don’t match up to what is being asked for.
I remember I found a lot of success sharing my articles on LinkedIn a few years ago. It was a very organic space for engagement and with the support of my newsroom’s social channels on LinkedIn I saw traction. As more business leaders and media outlets saw the potential of LinkedIn, the engagement dwindled. Suddenly if I wanted to see engagement I needed to be commenting and liking other LinkedIn posts all the time, posting with a regular cadence even if I had no content to share and then hiding links to my own stories to trick the algorithm into displaying my posts because it no longer wanted content that linked out somewhere else. It became a full-time job to make it work (time that I didn’t have on top of my reporting and writing) and I wonder if we will see the same thing play out on video especially as everyone seems to be flocking toward it.
I think it's perfectly legitimate for screen-averse established writers to say "here's where I draw the line" too. Fortunately, a lot of industries need people who are good with researching, reporting, and prose.
Wesley Morris talked about this a bit in the NYMag piece about the Times trying to make its podcasters famous, though it was about his guests rather than other journalists. I think the point remains though:
“There’s a new ethics baked into this in terms of how you have these conversations and what asks you’re making of guests. Setting aside how I feel in my comfort being in front of a camera, there are people who I really want to talk to who won’t share that comfort for any number of reasons — for privacy concerns; because they don’t like people looking at them.”
This is great. Love the questions - ("When reporters become personalities, does that change how they report? When your face is your brand, do you start avoiding stories that might make you look bad") - I also think there's a sinister element in the journey to becoming a media personality in the first place. Right now, the fastest way to obtain the requisite attention and engagement to build influence is by being provocative. The algorithm, we are well-aware, does not reward thoughtful, nuanced, well-researched, and properly referenced analysis. It rewards ragebaiting.
As these established publications embrace the idea of incentivizing journalists to build personal followings, that means their 'success' may start being judged on social engagement KPIs in the same way brand social media managers are (rather than quality of reporting/writing). I'm sure this is already a thing via clickbait-y headlines etc., but adding talking heads exacerbates the situation. This will inevitably pressure them into more ragebaiting. So yes it will change how they report. And actually, rather than avoiding stories that make them look bad, it will encourage more problematic stories to provoke engagement, which further jeopardizes journalistic integrity.
The other side of provocation is some sort of engagement, right? So you're absolutely right. If the algorithm prioritizes a type of action happening, then provoking that action is the best way to enter and stay in the flywheel. Like you, i'm also curious about how success is going to be measured. I'm maybe naive, but I would hope that major outlets would want to look at something beyond the traditional social KPIs even though I know the end goal of all this is maximizing time-on-platform.
This is something I think about a lot. I once ran a podcast that got quite a large following and I stepped away when the pressure to be a brand got to be too much. At the time it seemed like the right decision, but now I wonder if becoming a "brand" is inevitable.
I'm in the same boat as you regarding this feeling of wait do I also have to influence if I want to get writing jobs in journalism? And boy, it's making some publications really awkward right now as they throw their smart, nerdy, not necessarily telegenic writers in front of video that's set up for TikTok.
There's also the question of what this does to journalism itself. When reporters become personalities, does that change how they report? --> yes. Personalities and Reporters should rarely overlap, and now it's mandatory that they overlap.
Thanks for articulating this so clearly. I also think about the time that people inevitably invest in becoming "telegenic" and what that costs their writing/research time.
I've been debating for the better part of a year now doing, like, "behind the story" stuff to talk about how a story came together in detail. Honestly, one of the big barriers to that (beyond not wanting to make selfie videos) is that I don't know how my editors at major pubs would react or if I'd be breaking some sort of rule.
Vanity has prevented me from posting video more than I do, and I’m honestly not sure if that is a good or bad thing.
Discovered this really excellent (and right up my alley/ wish-list-algo) piece because your face showed up on my feed chatting with Emily. If this is in fact the game, I hope that lots of real journalists and talented writers decide to play it.
As a former broadcast journalist I always felt the print journalists looked down on us because we were just "prompter readers". I remember one day having to train a print journalist to fill in for me at the NYSE to do live shots. She said she was ready but when it came time to do the report she froze. I felt for her. This wasn't what she signed up for. But I also loved it when she acknowledged that maybe being on camera wasn't so easy. The good news is that when print-first reporters now go on camera the expectation is a lot lower and they aren't expected to be as polished as the broadcast-first journalists.. and if all this helps journalism stay alive its a good thing.
I think it's two completely different skillsets so this anecdote checks out for sure!
Media companies need to thinking more like sports team that cultivate start athletes. Compensation is also very much part of that.
I think the free agent / sports framework is becoming the dominant vernacular in recruiting and retention right now.
In the ol’ broadcast days, some folks thrived in print or radio—but when they moved to TV, it became clear not everyone has that ‘it factor’ on-camera presence. Same goes for today’s digital world. Live video and video content demand a different kind of energy. Some can make the leap, others are better off sticking to text or audio-only podcast formats where they truly shine.
I think about the time component a lot. There needs to be a lot more support from newsrooms to make this work if more journalists are to become “brands.” Influencers who find success talking about news are generally doing so because they are essentially taking someone else’s reporting and providing commentary on it, so they have the capacity to spend time on the visuals, the script, the marketing etc or they are journalists who have a team of people behind them supporting the product. What happens when we are asking a junior/mid-level journalist to do story ideation, intensive sourcing and reporting and then to also go out create and present dynamic polished, but not too polished, videos ? The salaries and benefits don’t match up to what is being asked for.
I remember I found a lot of success sharing my articles on LinkedIn a few years ago. It was a very organic space for engagement and with the support of my newsroom’s social channels on LinkedIn I saw traction. As more business leaders and media outlets saw the potential of LinkedIn, the engagement dwindled. Suddenly if I wanted to see engagement I needed to be commenting and liking other LinkedIn posts all the time, posting with a regular cadence even if I had no content to share and then hiding links to my own stories to trick the algorithm into displaying my posts because it no longer wanted content that linked out somewhere else. It became a full-time job to make it work (time that I didn’t have on top of my reporting and writing) and I wonder if we will see the same thing play out on video especially as everyone seems to be flocking toward it.
I think it's perfectly legitimate for screen-averse established writers to say "here's where I draw the line" too. Fortunately, a lot of industries need people who are good with researching, reporting, and prose.
Wesley Morris talked about this a bit in the NYMag piece about the Times trying to make its podcasters famous, though it was about his guests rather than other journalists. I think the point remains though:
“There’s a new ethics baked into this in terms of how you have these conversations and what asks you’re making of guests. Setting aside how I feel in my comfort being in front of a camera, there are people who I really want to talk to who won’t share that comfort for any number of reasons — for privacy concerns; because they don’t like people looking at them.”