The internet has transformed list-based writing, for better and for worse. But mostly for worse—it’s skyrocketed lists’ quantity at the expense of quality. The “listicle” format allows many writers to indulge shallow thinking, exchanging depth for breadth.
Google and its imitator search engines have created some pressure to add a little depth to the analysis, but the way Google tests for depth is itself shallow. It basically grades by word-count, which serves some lists better than others. Consider this list of rock songs about friendship. If the song is clearly about friendship, then all the reader needs is the song title, band name, maybe release year, and a link to play the song or read the lyrics. And if it’s clearly not about friendship, but is instead about longing and searching, then no amount of vamping in a mini-essay is going to build a convincing case otherwise.
Even worse are the lists where you have to click through page after page just to see all the list entries, though these have gotten less pervasive of late.
Journalism has always had a “headline disconnect” problem: what makes marketable headlines sometimes doesn’t make accurate ones. The few moderate takes get sold as over-the-top shockers (more on that in point #10), but mostly, headlines overpromise what listicles can’t help but underdeliver.
(“Why didn’t you know all 265 of these facts existed? God, you’re stupid!”)
Not that honest headlines would make most listicles satisfying. In general, they’re produced by an overworked, underpaid crowd of freelancers who have to adopt the quantity-over-quality ethic and give up on luxuries like proper research if they hope to even eke out some secondary income. I’ve been part of that crowd for a few highly trafficked sites, so I got to feel that pressure firsthand. I’d like to say that I got out of there the second it became clear that I couldn’t do good work under those conditions…and that I never went back…but sometimes you talk yourself into things and say “maybe I can manage” and hey let’s move on to point 5—
Here’s an example of shoddy research that crossed my desk just recently: The 10 Fictional Characters Who Have Appeared In The Most Movies. The list is from a website I once dreamed of writing for: CBR, shortened from when it was Comic Book Resources.
The problems start immediately. Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny are given slots for appearing in “countless” animated shorts, which most people would not consider to be full “movies.” And despite the author’s apparent belief, these appearances can be counted if you, you know, actually try. They’re short cartoons, not atomic particles. There’s a record of each one. You can just add them up.
Dracula, the actual Guinness record-holder for film appearances with more than 200 Guinness-recorded films to his credit, is listed behind James Bond, who has less than 30. Inexplicably, even the top two entries are mismatched, ranking Michael Myers’ 13 films above Batman’s 16. Don’t mind that quiet piano music, it’s just the sound of my dream of writing for CBR dying forever.
Concluded tomorrow.
Comments
No posts