Why We Cover the Topics That We've Long Focused on (by Choice)
Ron Hovsepian is still upset about what whistleblowers told us about him (what we published was factual but inconvenient to him)
TODAY we'll be out a lot of the day (going out generally helps meet people and "discover" topics). Yesterday we got some more leaks and we intend to gradually publish these over the weekend. Maybe it'll even "spill over" till next week. Either way, we have many stories planned for next year.
I recently got the opportunity to chat with an editor of another site, Britain's biggest in the area. I asked him about why they didn't cover some topics. He said that "as for why the [publisher's name] didn't cover it, I dunno why. I can't even remember. If it happened today, and I was aware of it, we would do it" (we try to encourage publishers to cover important topics, as without coverage people just won't be aware).
I told him "there are more stories going on than one can cover [and] it's a triaging issue" (we must choose carefully what to prioritise).
He too said, "we can't cover everything and we focus on what affects people's day to day working lives mostly" (in technology) "but it's not some conspiracy or cover up. we just can't get to everything in time. we're not bloomberg."
I told him that some optimise for "Advertising" though it is better to optimise for positive impact (but usually it's least profitable and you get called names for doing it). Covering topics is something that should about positive impact (it is not a popularity contest), even if that means covering negative things or exposing corruption.
And "sure", the editor said, "but if someone doesn't run a story there are reasons other [than] cover-up. i know there are coverups in media but we're not *all* into that"
I partly objected to the use of the term "cover-up", arguing that it's a loaded term like "deep state".
He said, "i also saw that you said your visitor numbers are up, so people are paying more attention..."
Traffic is not what we aim for; we aim for impact and positive impact. That never changed. A campaign like "Boycott Novell" was never destined to attract many eyes (most people didn't know what Novell was or what it did). Yet it accomplished what it needed to. This letter from a lawyer helps confirm that.
We'll continue to cover suppressed issues because such issues are usually obstructed. They're more likely to attract SLAPP because covering them would hurt powerful (rich) interests. █