Search engine optimisation does hurt but quality journalism died some time ago. We keep lamenting its loss but the more we pine, the greater the profession was … apparently.

Journalism has never been only fact based. The birth of the ANZAC legend in WW1 is one example. Many of C.W. Bean’s observations were dressed up in order to make Diggers look bigger, stronger and more fearless than they probably were.

It’s difficult to see the line between reporting and editorial and as long as journalists interview each other, articles include phrases like; ‘it has been reported that …’ and as long as journalist fail to use two or more sources to verify facts, we the consumers are stuck with ‘infotainment’. The illness suffered by Patrick Swayze was first reported as leaving him only weeks to live. This patently wrong bit of trivia was later amended to report that the actor was undergoing chemotherapy. This was a good example where being first was more important than being right. It’s not search engines that drive this race, it has always been that way although technology has progressively shrunk the timeframes.

Newspapers are not subject to search engine optimisation, the recent story broken by the West Australian about Patagonian toothfish poachers invoked a rapid and angry response from the Australian Government when it was revealed that a. they weren’t in Australian waters, and b. they were licenced, registered and highly regulated fishermen who are part of the legal toothfish industry. To their credit the West did print a retraction the next day but the seed of a lie had been sown as a result of sloppy journalism.

Ultimately, it is we the consumers that choose to click on banal headlines and lap up rumours. It is the advertisers who follow us, our reading patterns and our taste in journalism. With Mel and Kochie attracting morning viewers, nude-nun and panda stories driving clicks and Today Tonight out-rating the 7.30 Report we don’t need to blame search engine optimisation for the death of quality journalism we need look no further than the mirror.

Peter Oborne in his book The Triumph of the Political Class makes the point that politicians are now professional intent on their remaining in office. He points to the increasing use, including in Australia, of the use of search engines, engines in this case supplied with data from many surveys showing for a particular electorate those issues on which the voters feel most or least strongly. This data is called Voters Vault. A party can thus direct its candidates to promise correction on issues most dearly held even if trivial. So why worry about the media using search engines? So far they are only linked to reader interest in the mind of the editor or is there a readers vault?
Lipmann, a famous American journalist is recorded as writing in 1929, “It was believed that if only he could be taught more facts, he being the omnicompetent citizen, if only he would take more interest, if only he would listen to more lectures and read more reports, he would gradually be trained to direct public affairs”.
Unfortunately he concluded this assumption about the public was false.
As the media finds what is wanted is, change, trivia, gossip, gentle fear, sex, sentimental niceties and similar, so why should the media provide for the democratic citizen who can provide an informed vote to direct his country.
Did he ever?
Certainly at present it is power money and untruths or spin that takes us to war or ignores a useful man from Bangladesh in favour of a film stars foot. Tells us the terrorism is wrong but neglects tell us terrorism is ours as well. Tells us war is necessary not saying necessary to Bush Blair and Howard not to facts.
No I am quite happy the media will continue to tell us what it is they think we want to hear even scientists for gain can enter debates for which they have no substantial offering beyond their prestige.
Why make it harder for our leaders, politicians, corporate high fliers CEO’s and their 20 million bucks, evangelists one and all!

"In a world where advertisers pay more than fifty bucks for a click on the phrase "esothelioma law firms", Higgins asks, in the latest issue of The Walkley Magazine, "How tempting might it be to commission a few extra James Hardie stories a week or simply add a few pars about *esothelioma into existing stories?"

Or hey, what about giving writers a kick-back so that they could throw the word into their copy?

demothenes took a subsidy from alexander, to speak against xerxes. money has been driving the media as long as there has been a 'media'.

we now have an alternative source in the web, if we want to use it, but the lack of credibility is not removed by the lack of money motive.

believe nothing, if you don't have a reason for trust. it turns out the intellectual jungle is just as uncertain as the natural one.

A grim assessment. Overall, it's probably accurate, however provided there are still discerning consumers out there, there will always be a market for some quality journalism, even if it is a small proportion when compared to tabloid fare.

I guess it's up to us to ignore the tabloid fare and actively support quality journalism, simply by reading it.

It's not much of an ask.

Good article. But as some others have said, I think journalism that satisfies reader's interests & brings home the bacon for the news orgs always was a reality. It's up to each reader to be discerning. The info you get is the info you deserve.