7 things we all hate about our news feed... that newspapers would never do

As a former newspaper editor, I hate the way news is presented online. This should come as no surprise. I’ve written critically about the way the news has evolved — or devolved ­— over the past 20 years or so, and I’ve poked fun at the way we communicate in catchphrases and buzzwords. I refuse to “circle back” to anything, and while I may “say the quiet part out loud,” you won’t catch me saying I’m saying the quiet part out loud.

Except here. As a way of making a point.

My continuing plea: “Please Stop Saying That!”

Like most people, I get my news online these days. Newspapers in general just aren’t what they used to be, because they’ve never found a way to compete in print with their online adversaries. In most cases, the print product is a shadow of its former self, providing bare-bones coverage with skeleton reporting staffs on a handful of pages. If I want to read something in print these days, I’ll read a book.

That doesn’t mean I like the way news is presented online. I don’t get it in a social media news feed because I’ve been off social media for a couple of years now (with the exception of LinkedIn, which I use rarely).

In fact, I laugh and cringe in equal measure when I see the lengths to which online sites go in their quest for clicks and ad exposure. It’s become almost comical: way beyond pop-up ads and clickbait. I’m sure you’ve run across some of these:

Misleading photos

You may have seen stories illustrated with photos in your feed that are misleading at best, often accompanying stories about celebrities.

“You won’t believe what Joe Celebrity and his wife are saying about each other!” The photo will show two celebrities... who aren’t even married to each other and never have been. The hook is to get you to say, “I didn’t know William Shatner and Tyra Banks are married!” (I’m making that up) and click on the link to confirm that they are.

Of course, they’re not. The site never says they are, but merely implies it by pairing their photo with a headline, even though it’s unrelated. And in doing so, the site has shocked you into visiting its ad-laden portal.

Can you imagine a newspaper doing this? I sure can’t.

(To illustrate: The cute kitten at the top of this page has nothing to do with any of the content here. I just happen to like cats!)

Can you believe what she looks like now?

A photo of a celebrity from back in the day appears in your feed, and you’re invited to click the link to find out what that person looks like now.

But why on earth would you want to do that? It’s easy enough just to Google the person’s name and select the “Images” tab. Voila! You’ll get all sorts of pictures of any given celebrity at any and every age.

Yes, I can believe what she looks like now, because I can SEARCH FOR IT without looking at your clickbait-y site, thank you very much!

Story continues…

Really? Thanks for telling me that. And thanks for making me press a button to see the rest of it. That’s awfully considerate of you. Not. Why not let me just decide FOR MYSELF whether I want to keep reading, without making me jump through hoops? Because the website designers don’t want to let me think for myself, that’s why.

People who think for themselves aren’t impulse buyers, which is exactly the kind of person who will click on an ad after clicking on that “story continues” or “continue reading” button.

This may not seem much different from a newspaper story that “jumps” from the cover to an inside page. But in print, that was necessary because you had limited space and needed room on another page for the rest of the story. Online, there are no such restrictions, so it’s a false comparison.

Still, that’s not nearly as bad as...

Next!

“Continue reading” pales beside the ubiquitous “Next” button at the bottom of a page. It’s typically used in those popular list stories. You know the ones: “The 25 most popular seafood restaurants that also serve hot dogs” or “The 10 worst boy bands of all time” (as if there are any good ones, except for maybe the Beatles before they went psychedelic).

You reach the bottom of the first page, and you are confronted with the dreaded “Next” prompt, which you’ll have to click for each and every item on the list... that is, if the screen doesn’t shift unexpectedly, causing you to hit an ad link instead, by mistake. Except it’s not a mistake in the eyes of the website owners: That’s exactly what they want you to do.

Whenever I stumble into one of these, I exit rather than hitting “Next.” I won’t give them the satisfaction! In fact, I’ve learned to recognize these sites, in most cases, before I click on them.

Imagine a newspaper story that jumped from the front page to 23 different pages, one after another. It would never happen — especially since most newspapers today don’t have that many pages!

The story’s over... or is it?

It’s difficult at times to know for sure when a story is over, because the text is broken up into small blocks that are divided, in each case, by a series of ads and links. They’re the same kind of ads and links that appear at the end of the story, so it’s hard to know whether you’ve read all there is to read or whether you need to scroll down for something more.

While you’re trying to figure it out, you focus on the ads.

Then you scroll down.

And see MORE ads.

And, we website owners hope, you click on them.

Can you imagine ads stuck in the middle of a newspaper story every other paragraph? I sure can’t.

Whitelists and paywalls

I understand sites need ads to make money, but asking me to disable (whitelist) my ad blocker so they can show me those ads? Sorry. I’ll find another site with the same information that doesn’t require me to do that!

Imagine paying $2 for a newspaper and being told, “You can’t read this story unless you look at the ad below.” And if your refuse? The newspaper disappears in a puff of smoke. Sounds absurd, I know, because it would never happen with a newspaper.

But it happens online all the time.

I understand why news sites use paywalls, too, but that doesn’t mean I have to like them. Yes, reporters should get paid for what they write, but putting a story out there as though it’s available to be read and then hitting the reader with a paywall is dirty pool: It’s bait-and-switch. If the website were honest, a notation reading “subscription required” would appear alongside the story in your feed.

But honesty is seldom the best (read: most profitable) policy online, even for a news site.

Imagine someone handing you a newspaper. You open it and start to read it. Then the person grabs it out of your hands and says, “Not so fast, buddy! You gotta pay!” You know what I would do? I’d throw that newspaper back in their face. But that would never happen with a newspaper, which is exactly my point.

(Hint: Sometimes you can get around these restrictions by accessing the “cached” version of the page. It’s sneaky, and there isn’t always a cached page available, but it’s worth a try.)

Headlines that overpromise

“Here’s why Celebrity X drinks Kool-Aid for breakfast. You’ll never believe the true reason!”

Who cares, right? But maybe you’re intrigued, so you click the link in hopes of finding out. You’re then led by the hand through a long, meandering piece about the celebrity’s childhood, her parents’ divorce, her success at school, how she was “discovered,” yada, yada, yada.

When do you get to the Kool-Aid?

If you get there at all, it’s near the end of the story, and there’s some lame explanation like, “She drinks Kool-Aid because she likes it.”

But you’re the one who’s drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid by clicking on this link in the first place!

Stephen H. Provost is the author of more than 30 books and a former journalist with more than 30 years of experience at daily newspapers. They are all available on Amazon.