There’s a Place for “Filler” Content

Admit it. You like it. (Maybe sometimes?)

A large newspaper company came under some heat recently when they changed their name to “Tronc” (yes, that’s the actual name). It sounds like a weird Transformers villain or maybe the name of a Evil Corp database with nefarious secrets, not the owner of two of the nation’s most prestigious newspapers — The Chicago Tribune and The LA Times.

In the introductory Tronc video, there’s a lot of optimization talk for better audience engagement. Not much is said about reporting or accuracy. There’s something about start-up culture meeting corporate culture, but in fact most newspapers are pretty anti-corporate. The video hopes to inspire, but instead it’s insipid. One word was said more than “journalism” or “story”. That word was “content.”

Ah, content.

Everyone wants some fresh, hot content. It doesn’t even really matter what it is. Movies, essays, humor columns, intense reporting, novels, six-second video splices…it’s all the same, right?

I really like this quote from Maria Popova, the founder of Brain Pickings, on The Tim Ferriss podcast last year:

There’s actually I think nothing more toxic to the creation of meaningful cultural material, whatever its medium, than the term “content”. Which already implies an icky external motive. Content is something you produce and purvey to other people, filler material that becomes currency for advertising and whatnot, and not something you do for yourself. Nobody does content for the joy of their soul.

I think Maria would agree that the Tronc video seems “icky.” It feels a little forced. I guess Tronc created bad content. And I agree, I don’t like the Tronc video, but still content, especially for a newspaper, is a reality.

People like “content” though :(

But…the thing about “bad” content is that it gets the clicks and the reads. “Bad” content gives momentary pleasure and we know it doesn’t last forever. You’ve probably read one or two lists on a silly subject and then never go back. Even on those silly lists, we can recognize when one is “quality” and when one is not. Buzzfeed generally comes up with good lists and oh by the way, they do real journalism too.

People usually get mad at the proliferation of “content”, but forget that it’s been happening for a number of years. What about the beloved newspaper “stories” and “real” reporting from the 20th century? Those same newspapers most often contained comics (except the NY Times…every paper is not the NY Times). They also contained sports sections and a life section or a style section and a sports section, along with the hard news stuff.

A newspaper at the breakfast table & everything?

I grew up with a daily newspaper coming to my house everyday. And the hard news was the last section we ever read. My dad had the sports section first so I read the comics and waited for him to finish. Then we would switch. He would sometimes do the brain teasers or the word jumbles. That’s some solid “content” right there.

Eventually we would flip through the front, scan the headlines and read a news story if it seemed interesting. Which is much like how I read the “hard” news today.

Point is, I think there’s always been “bad” content. Stories that are fun and light. Movies that go fast and make us laugh hard. Cheesy novels and formulaic television. That stuff isn’t “art” but is there value in the diversion?

Blah blah analytics

The difference now is that it’s easier to analyze what stories pop and which ones don’t. We’re coming to understand the reality that’s always been there — the meatiest stuff doesn’t get the most reads or clicks. Yesterday’s comics and word jumbles in the newspaper are today’s slideshows and listicles. It’s serving the same purpose.

This has everyone hemming and hawing because we can’t lie to ourselves anymore about how much people value journalism. The “bad” content was always bundled with the “good” content and now we can separate the two, which impacts the revenue stream on the “good.”

Even in the “good” section of the newspaper, the hard news and reports on city happenings, some days were better than others. Some days felt like they were “filler” for “advertising material.” Because in a lot of ways they were.

Fill me with filler, pls

And I don’t know Maria personally, but I bet some days it feels like filler to her, too. If she doesn’t write enough stories, her sponsorships may go down. She probably is very much invested in the work, but some pieces probably come easier than others. That’s the same with any writer or journalist. The newspaper had to go out everyday and do their work, in much the same way as several big blogs have to keep going everyday.

It’s unfair to lump everything together as “content” and it’s also unfair to ignore the realities of what being a journalist or blogger or an engaged reporter demands. The hard news is important and vital and is great work . It’s not all the same, but I don’t think one should demonize the other.

Um, what if someone *likes* “content” and even writing it?

In fairness, Maria was addressing a question about blogging and writing, not necessarily a money-making outfit, though a lot of people are interested in blogging for money or writing. I don’t disagree that writing for “yourself” and the “joy of your soul” is important, because it is.

But what if some of these content producers actually find joy in creating listicles and other content for potential advertisers? Then what? Is that icky or being “true to yourself” or “true to providing for your family” or “true to paying the bills”?

I’m not really sure that’s me. I don’t have to write a blog to live everyday, I have to write other stuff though. I do get tired of the same posts that seem to repeat themselves, but I can’t measure if someone is being “true” to themselves just by a few Medium posts or blog posts. Some stuff seems repetitive, but maybe they’re just a boring person and that is the joy of their soul? (I should probably stop reading their work, then). I can’t even believe I’m writing this stuff. I usually come down pretty hard on people who repeat the same basic bull back and forth — but I’m also figuring out how to be patient with people and their writing. What then? Should they not even start?

As an avid reader and a person with an advanced English degree (can you believe it?), I like to read good stuff. I want to read good stories. I don’t read all the cheap content. The thing is, not everyone is like me (shocker).

I & Content & You

Some people like to read content, and many of those same people don’t mind writing it — no matter if it’s their soul passion or not.

Those that have to produce everyday or do produce everyday, shouldn’t be looked down upon by those in a more privileged position to not produce “content” everyday. There’s a long history of consistent writing and reporting, as well as a long history of filler. There’s a long history of content.c

What did you think? If you liked this post, please recommend it!

I’m Josh Spilker and I blog about writing and books. My free guide,How To Fail As A Writer is being turned into a book…pre-order your copy here.