Poynter's E-media TidBits column today explores some of the unintended consequences of "search engine optimization" -- the process whereby ads (or, in this case, related stories) are "summoned" to a Web page because of keywords in a story or story element (headlines, cutlines, behind-the-scenes coding, etc.)
In a nutshell, the Times recently implemented a search optimization strategy that increased traffic to its site -- especially to its voluminous archives. This meant that stories from decades past suddenly appeared quite prominently in current search-engine results.
So an important question arises: is this journalistically and ethically sound practice? Can we shrug our editing shoulders and say, "Well, it's an AD or a REVENUE SOURCE, after all. I have no control over that..." In the case of The NYT, the instant sidebar material could be seen as a reporting tool, no?
The logo for New York magazine contains the sylized "New" that is used in this ad, which is a "cover wrap" for New York magazine. It was sent to a "select" group of subscribers/readers, but it's causing a general brouhaha because of how it's gone against understood ethical standards against allowing magazine covers to be co-opted for advertising purposes. Romenesko links to this blog entry: 'New York' bending the rules with cover wrap?
Bob Gray referred this morning to an incident at National Geographic when a photograph of two pyramids was digitally altered to make them look closer together (see left). Some accounts say that it was to better utilize the magazine's format -- basically, as Gray said, to "make the picture look better." That was in 1982. A magazine policy on photo manipulation followed soon after.
