老司机传媒

The digital world is all about engagement, and while it can sometimes involve the kind that leads to marriage, this is a form more unique to the online sphere. Internet content, whether videos on YouTube or articles on a website, is more successful the more people engage with it by watching the video or clicking on the article. The more engagement a piece of content gets, the more profitable it becomes. Engagement is what separates the amateur posters and news organizations from the professional influencers and international journalism giants. When it comes to business, this is understandable.

Advertising is one of the most consistent sources of revenue on the internet. When compared to other avenues such as subscriptions, advertisements are easier to run for the company because they don’t require a login service or any actual spending by the consumer. When somebody opens up a YouTube video, they are often hit with an ad before the video starts. While it may be viewed as a minor hindrance and takes up some of our valuable time, it does not require the viewer to actually pay any of their own money to YouTube, at least not directly. The payment in advertising comes from the money viewers spend on the advertiser’s products instead of on their competitor’s, extra money that makes up for what they spent on advertising. While the overall goal of advertising is to increase revenue for the company paying for the ad, it is profitable for the company that runs the ad as well, or else they wouldn’t be involved.

Just last year, YouTube made $28.8 billion dollars in revenue from . This doesn’t include any money from their subscription services like YouTube Premium or YouTube TV. In terms of advertising in general, the majority of advertising money is now spent on . According to PewResearch, in 2020, companies earned $152 billion dollars in digital advertising revenue, and digital advertising made up 63% of all advertising revenue. In 2011, that number was only about $32 billion dollars. Advertisements are a huge business, and when they are a main source of revenue for many media companies, they will do almost anything to drive engagement.

Over the weekend, Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Dwayne Haskins was tragically when he was struck by a dump truck on Interstate 595 in South Florida. The 24-year-old’s death was a harsh blow to the football world, and he was mourned by current and former teammates, as well as other football players and fans. However, on the day of the accident, many fans and players were, at least temporarily, distracted by a tweet from NFL insider Adam Schefter where he placed the quarterback’s professional struggles at the focus of a message announcing his death. Schefter is more than just some random journalist or commentator, he is a top reporter for ESPN, one of the largest sports news organizations in the United States, and is often among the first reporters to break stories regarding the league and its players, as he did in this instance. Players such as recent NFL MVP Lamar Jackson and Cardale Jones, another quarterback from Haskins’s alma mater Ohio State, Schefter for his insensitivity and his choice to highlight Haskins’ issues in the NFL just hours after his death. Schefter deleted the tweet and reworded it, removing the references to struggle. On Monday, April 11, he for his tweet, but did so on his podcast, and kept the full apology off of his Twitter, leading some to that he used his delayed apology to push engagement with his podcast.

Were this an isolated incident, it likely would not have been as big a deal as it was. Sports reporters make mistakes, and if they were fired every time they did, there would be very few reporters left. The problem is that Schefter has a long history of missteps regarding accurate information and, some would argue, journalistic integrity. Six months ago, in October 2021, a story came out that in 2011, he sent an to then-Washington Redskins president Bruce Allen, in which he referred to Allen as “Mr. Editor” and asked him if anything in a story Schefter was writing about the NFL lockout, of which he sent Allen the full manuscript, should be “added, changed, [or] tweaked.”  In 2016, Schefter conducted an with Greg Hardy, a former defensive end for the Carolina Panthers who had been convicted of sexual assault, where he didn’t push back on any of Hardy’s claims including that photographic evidence could have been doctored. Afterwards, Schefter described Hardy as “a changed kind of guy.” There are , but this should be enough. However, there is a simple answer as to why Schefter is still employed by ESPN: He gets views.

Schefter is one of the most famous non-players in not only the NFL world, but the sports world in general. The only NBA team with Twitter followers than Schefter is the Los Angeles Lakers, and his are that of the most followed NFL team. While he lost more than 11,000 followers after his tweet about Haskins’ death, such small numbers have no effect on him. Just two weeks ago, he signed a extension with ESPN, showing the network is willing to overlook issues with their journalism if it means their engagement doesn’t drop. This should not be the focus of media companies.

Covering controversial topics, topics that inherently drive clicks, is not in and of itself a bad practice. Serious articles about ideas which will make a portion of a site’s reader base angry are important because of the value of the ideas themselves, and should not be avoided simply because they also drive engagement. The problem comes when companies either write controversial articles because of their effects on their metrics rather than the story’s intrinsic worth, or ignore problems with their writing or staff that, if addressed, could hurt their profits. It is important to cover controversy, because it is important to the people and because the outcome of said controversy can have a profound impact on the field. But the focus should be on the importance of the story, not on the clicks.