Time’s Swampland blog has an interesting post today about the “Internet Effect” on news, written by Michael Scherer.

Because of the Internet, you, the reader, no longer have buy information in pre-fabricated packages like “newspapers.” You can just go online and individually select the articles you want to read.

True. Scherer goes on to point out that as the value of the package (newspapers) declines, the value of the individual article increases—therefore, the competition to make your article stand out from the herd increases tenfold. This forces better writing and responsiveness, but it also means reporters and bloggers tend to push the envelope on sensationalism.

Assume, for instance, that 12 news organizations do the same story on the same day about how Hillary Clinton has a tough road ahead of her to get the nomination. Which story is going to get the most links and therefore the most readers? Is it the one that cautiously weighs the pros and cons, and presents a nuanced view of her chances? Or is it the one that says she is toast, and anyone who thinks different is living on another planet?

Well, I know which one I’d read. Scherer’s point, ultimately, is this: “If you say something provocatively, in a new way, or with an unexpected spin, you will succeed online. If you play it safe, you will not.”

Do you agree? If so, isn’t this true with anything? Achieving success in any arena is almost always about setting yourself apart from your competition (for example…job interviews, marketing, advertising, sales, etc.) so is this really anything new? Do you think this will affect the quality of news? I’d love to hear your thoughts.