Originally Posted by Peter Wijninga
The author's reaction to the response to her piece in Harper's Bazaar: 'My reported feature that went super viral. Probably my best work yet...". That's it ''Super Viral''...it pays the rent in Chamonix.
"thing make money!"
In my role as illustrator I've become acquainted with a lot of authors/journalists, sometimes directly but more often indirectly. Accuracy is not very important, getting clicks is. And if you want to take a step down from journalist to "professional blogger" then bull****ting your readers it the best way to get clicks. Often the technique is fairly innocuous - asking for an answer to a not so esoteric question to stir responses in the comments, or if one is a bit more mischievous making a deliberate mistake such as getting the date wrong on a historic event. Whether it results in helpful suggestions or angry "WHY DON'T YOU PROOFREAD THESE???" comments is immaterial. The post gets clicks and comments and that's all the site cares about.
Still better? Make a whole series of articles on a premise that may well be true, but don't even bother with the details. I remember one series of articles where the author's first in the series was actually quite well researched and reasoned - but it was a somewhat decisive subject so stirred up hundreds of comments and hundreds of thousands of clicks. So what next? Come back next month with another well researched, well written article? Nope. Every week another item on the topic, each sloppier than the one before, until the author was grasping at straws trying to find anything relating to the subject that would keep the readership stirred up. This is not exceptional, it is basically the rule in online publishing.
clicks > quality