12 Comments

Summary:

Designer Andy Rutledge has been getting slammed for a blog post about the flaws that afflict most major news websites such as the New York Times — but his biggest mistake is arguing that news sites should avoid social-media elements, when the exact opposite is true.

Birdhouses
photo: See-ming Lee

There’s been a lot of sound and fury in the media sphere recently, sparked by a blog post from web designer Andy Rutledge that tore apart the New York Times website for being ugly and cluttered. This caused a firestorm of sorts on Twitter, as defenders of the site argued that most of his criticisms and proposed solutions were unrealistic — which many of them arguably are. But the biggest blunder Rutledge commits is when he argues that news sites should avoid social-recommendation elements, when the opposite is true.

Many of Rutledge’s points about the New York Times site have a lot of truth to them, and he makes a point of saying that his criticisms are not specific to the NYT, but apply to plenty of other newspaper websites as well. The biggest issue — as anyone who has spent any time trying to find a specific story on the NYT home page will likely agree — is that the site is literally crammed to the rafters with links. Not only is there a navigational sidebar with links to every section of the paper, and section menus, but there are hundreds of separate links and other elements on every page. Says Rutledge:

I think the object of the game must be to fit as much “content” onto the page as possible in an effort to overwhelm the reader, tricking them into believing that the NY Times is just bursting with a mindbogglingly-bottomless array of important information. If only the reader could learn to ignore 60% of what’s here, she might have a chance at a pleasant experience.

The problem of too much content

To avoid this cluttered look, Rutledge argues that the NYT and other sites should strip out most of what they put on their pages — including much of the navigation — and make their search better and their classification systems more intuitive so readers can find what they want. And he gives credit to many news sites for having mobile versions and iPad apps that do a better job of streamlining their content for browsing, although he argues that many still try to cram too much into a single page.

Lauren Rabaino at the blog 10,000 words has done an admirable job of collecting some of the negative reactions to Rutledge’s post, as has Danny DeBelius. One of the designer’s critics is Nieman Journalism Lab editor Joshua Benton, who argues that Rutledge is ignoring the fact that the New York Times produces a vast amount of journalism and content every day, and that the website has to not only look nice but provide an easy way to navigate through all this content.

But Rutledge doesn’t so much ignore this fact as argue that most of that ocean of NYT content simply isn’t that important to most people, which gets to the core of the problem: for the most part, the New York Times website — like most news websites — is created and designed for some mythical reader who is interested in everything the paper produces. The reality, of course, is that there are virtually no such readers (or at least extremely few of them), and designing for them is a mistake.

No one is interested in everything

Everyone has certain things they are interested in at the NYT or many other news sites, and lots of other things that they couldn’t care less about. That’s why so many have turned to social media tools like Twitter as news sources — not just because it is real-time, and more personal, but also because a person’s social graph via Facebook or Twitter can act as a filter. This is summed up by the famous statement made by a young internet user in a consumer survey on news habits, who said: “If the news is that important, it will find me.” Is a great newspaper website design going to influence that process? Unlikely.

Which is why it’s so odd to see the designer say, in his new rules for news sites, that newspapers should dispense with the “most popular” and other recommendation features they have, and not worry about social media at all. He says:

There is no “most popular” news. There is news and there is opinion and they are mutually exclusive. Popularity of stories is something not contextual to news sites, but to social media sites… News is not social media. If it is, it fails to be news.

This misses the point by a country mile, in a couple of different ways, as Martin Belam from The Guardian and others have noted. For one thing, recommendation tools like “most popular” — or “recommended,” in the case of the New York Times — as well as the “like” buttons and other tools that allow people to share articles through Facebook and elsewhere, can be hugely useful both for readers and for the publications that use them. The Huffington Post achieved some dramatic traffic and engagement growth when it integrated Facebook Connect and made it easy for readers to see what their friends had shared, and others have seen similar jumps from Google+.

To say that “there is no most-popular news” ignores the fact that millions of people like to share news stories with their friends and followers, and that this is an integral part of what the media business is today — whether it’s individually-curated aggregators like Paper.li or News.me, or a more ambitious attempt to create a customized digital newspaper or magazine like Flipboard is becoming. And to argue that news “is not social media [and] if it is, it fails” shows a similar lack of insight into how digital media functions.

All media is effectively social, whether news organizations like the New York Times and others want it to be or not. To ignore that seems like incredibly bad advice from someone who claims to have the industry’s best interests at heart.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users See-ming Lee and jphilipg

  1. Could not agree more. I do think the current story format needs to be rethought and I am glad that many people are starting to have a conversation about news design. We simply aren’t leveraging the web, which enables us to tell stories in ways we weren’t able to with text and photos in print. And yet that is what we have defaulted to. I offered some thoughts for building blocks here: http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/07/vadim-lavrusik-five-key-building-blocks-to-incorporate-as-were-rethinking-the-structure-of-stories/

    Speaking of social, what happened to the ability to login through FB or Twitter for the comments on GigaOm? Made my life a lot easier from a usability standpoint.

    Share
    1. Thanks, Vadim — I liked your piece at the Nieman Lab. Some great thoughts about the evolution of the story in there. As far as the login thing goes, I think we decided to streamline the process somewhat. We are still evaluating how we approach that.

      Share
  2. Mathew, Nice article. I agree about, too much content and not everything interested. Real valid points were many bloggers miss out while we compose contents. Thanks. Manickam

    Share
    1. Manickam I agree with you that too much content can be extremely interesting.

      What are your thoughts on news being social media. To me I think there should be a distinct difference in the mediums. There are no regulations for social media as opposed to news sources. How can we factor in the accountability issue. I am not saying that news sources CAN’T use social media but to equate seems to be dangerous. Thoughts?

      Share
  3. I read this article up to “But the biggest blunder Rutledge commits is when he argues that news sites should avoid social-recommendation elements, when the opposite is true.”. This is of course opinion. Your article is based on this opinion being true. Thus, your article is crap.

    Share
  4. Actually, I am going to take a stance that sort of supports what Rutledge was saying. To quote, “News is not social media. If it is, it fails to be news.” He is absolutely right. News is about reporting facts. The social aspect is us sharing those facts. But that’s where my support stops because Rutledge is using an antiquated view of the news to describe how news has evolved. Today’s news is less about facts (because everyone can report on those, even the guy with the camera phone and a Twitter account). What’s become important are the opinions. They are no longer “mutually exclusive” as Rutledge says. They have become intrinsically connected and it is what distinguishes one newspaper from another (and what we are willing to pay for now). What’s most interesting about Rutledge’s position is that diverts into a discussion of what is news/media when he’s really harping on the design of the site and it’s presentation of content. Those, I would argue, are mutually exclusive. The method of presentation is directly related to the type of content (i.e., news vs. video, poetry vs. fiction, magazine vs. blog). As such, he has a very valid point in saying that the design of the NYT site is not conducive to the content type. And he’s right. Many of the news sites are built using the same paradigm as the news paper itself (with everything thrown at you). That’s partly a fault of the web and partly a fault of the NYT designers not thinking outside of the box. Maybe, ultimately, types of content will be better served in different mediums? Flipbook (and dedicated iPad apps) might be the best method for news-like content where as the Web might be better for others.

    http://blog.jasonthibeault.com/index.php/2011/07/10/ill-pay-for-opinions-not-news/

    J

    Share
  5. Great analysis, and so true. Cluttered is an understatement for the NY Times website. A return to simplicity would be welcomed.

    Share
  6. I actually disagree. I like that the Times designs their website for that “unicorn” reader. When I was the home page editor at Forbes, I had a lot of people telling me what they thought I should be putting on our home page, but, here’s the thing: My job wasn’t to listen to them, and my job wasn’t to filter the content for each type of reader. My job was to tell people what they *should* be reading, what they should be worried about, or happy about. And that is what the front page of the New York Times is doing (and should continue to keep doing). In this world where it is so easy to filter your life so that you only hear about the news you want to hear about, we NEED websites like the New York Times and the BBC and other news organizations that TELL us what we should be reading, not recommending what our friends are reading or what some vapid celebrity is reading. Sometimes someone has to stand-up in the middle of the room and act like an adult. That’s what the front page of nytimes.com does.

    Share
    1. Thanks, Ann — I am all for editors telling readers what they think they should read, I just don’t think that’s the *only* thing a website like the front of the NYT should do. I don’t think it’s an either-or proposition the way Rutledge makes it seem.

      Share
  7. Matthew, great piece!

    To expound further: beyond the improved navigation, there seems to be quite a lot more wrapped up in the idea of making content truly social. Imagine you could piece together your own version of the NYT and then make that sharable with your friends? There is, it seems, a huge upside in this approach for the publisher: just imagine the sort of ripple effect from empowering readers to curate and promote their own versions of the paper.

    http://mediarender.tumblr.com/post/6622484803/opportunities-in-audience-fragmentation

    G

    Share
  8. Dani Fankhauser Friday, July 29, 2011

    One of the classic definitions of news is “what people are talking about.” Thus, social tools are a great gift of digital :-)

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post