At a meeting this morning, I told a prospective newbie blogger that intentional controversy was often a massively over-rated virtue. In the light of this, I couldn't help but find myself nodding vigorously in agreement with this piece by Umair Haque:
Elephant in the room #2 when it comes to paywalls: you might have to change the nature of what your write and publish to make them work.To play the opinion arb game, news publishers have to stop seeking simply the most controversial opinions. They're abundant: every talking head can churn one out, and faux "news" of every kind is already chock full of 'em shrieking at one another. Instead, successful opinion arbitrageurs must seek the most informed opinions, gooey with expertise, thick with real value for readers.
Those opinions are worth the most -- and they're what readers will pay for.
I'm torn with this - on one hand I have always hated those columnists who editors value simply because the rubbish they write helps fill the letters page.
Quite how Rod Liddle has a job is beyond on me. Controversy is not a virtue when it's based on ignorance.
But then, the single thing I detest most about social media are the people queuing up to agree with each other. Debate has been made unpopular.
It's the reason that Twitter is actually less and less appealing. The same arguments going round and round in circles. The same good guys the same bad guys. Nobody putting their head on the block. Nobody making any real predictions - people only talking generally. Everyone being insipid enough so that it's impossible to disagree.
No disagreement here - I think debate is valuable, and that social media often lacks genuine debate because people can often form themselves into self-reinforcing cliques.
But I think the controversy being talked about here isn't debate, it's rabble-rousing - stirring up controversy for its own sake. It's dumbed down debate, if you like.