Journalism and web metrics: A love-hate relationship


It’s no secret that web metrics are playing a huge role in the media industry right now. Whereas journalists once strove to write the catchiest-sounding headlines, many now pack as many key search words into a headline as possible. Writers no longer want to report the most meaningful community issues, but the ones that will get the most online hits.

In “Confusion Online: Faulty Metrics and the Future of Digital Journalism,” Lucas Graves and John Kelly address the monumental differences among various methodologies for measuring web traffic. To phrase it mildly, many discrepancies, nay a chasm of discrepancies, exist among companies that provide measurement services. The authors provide some stupefying statistics from major measurement firms, Nielsen NetRatings and comScore. According to Graves and Kelley, comScore estimated that had 17 million unique visitors in May 2010, while Nielsen NetRatings calibrated 10 million unique visitors for the same month. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is a 7 million dollar difference. Both companies measured the same thing during the same span of time for the same newspaper. “Confusion” only begins to describe my feelings upon reading this.

Newsrooms rely so heavily on this technology. We market to advertisers based on these numbers. We often alter our editorial practices, our stories, as a result of this data. And yet, it’s so unreliable. There is little standardization in this field. Even basic nomenclature is beyond standardization. It seems assessors cannot even agree on the definition of a Unique visitor.” The irony of journalists revering accuracy in reporting, while simultaneously using potentially inaccurate traffic data, is not lost on me.

Hold your hats, guys, because I’m about to completely contradict myself. C.W. Anderson’s “‘Squeezing humanity through a straw’: The long-term consequences of using metrics in journalism” discusses the issues with journalism metrics, yet she also reflects on the positive aspects of web metrics. Anderson includes a quote from “Washington Post” executive producer Katharine Zaleski: ” There’s news we know people should read — because it’s important and originates with our reporting — and that’s our primary function…But we also have to be very aware of what people are searching for out there and want more information on…If we’re not doing that, we’re not doing our jobs.”

Anderson is right. Journalists need to publish relevant stories, but they should also be aware of what readers want to read. Web metrics can help us accomplish this goal by indicating which stories readers are most interested in. Anderson argues that metrics can be a good thing for journalism after all. 

Anderson also suggests that heavy reliance on traffic data removes the human element from reporting. She asserts that “in our rush to capture audience data, we run the risk of oversimplifying the notion of informational desire. We run the risk of squeezing humanity through a digital straw.” Essentially, we shouldn’t look at our readers and see only numbers. Connecting with them as humans, and not data, is an important facet of our jobs and frankly, what makes us journalists.

It seems that the biggest problems with web metrics are as follows: 1. There are little, if any, standardized methodologies for measuring web traffic. This causes major discrepancies among analytics providers and may not present an accurate portrayal of data. 2. Relying on online data so heavily removes the human element from our reporting.

We need to find a balance in our usage of web metrics. It has obvious implications for journalism, good and bad. It’s an extremely powerful tool that we have much to learn about. Heading forward, we need to standardize our measurements, remember our humanity and proceed cautiously.


4 thoughts on “Journalism and web metrics: A love-hate relationship

  1. A very interesting read that makes me wonder what kind of impact this sort of thing has on the economy. Also, what kind of impression a push-by-rating news source actually has on the people? It’s undoubtedly used in the news to imply particular philosophies and agendas. Again, a great read.

  2. The younger generation depends on the smart phone for its news. We all want our “likes” and “retweets”. The general population of cell phone carrying, on the go people, are now looking to trends to know what they should like. For the most part we have become a trend seekers instead of news seekers. We go on Twitter and glance down on what’s “trending” and we punch on the topic we like and tons of opinions or “tweets” spring forth and fill us with what the population thinks and we never think about if it is correct or not. We just feed into the popular and comment on what someone else has posted never really thinking about the facts, just thinking about this hype we are reading.

    • Pj, you raise a great point. It seems that society overall is obsessed with what’s happening now. Maybe we should reflect on the facts, as you remarked, and stop this unending need to know the newest, not necessarily the most important, news.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s