Last week, writer Pat Kernan wrote an article about how listicles are killing modern media. He raised some excellent points in his article and I think that any journalist or content creator should take his words to heart in an effort to continue to produce really amazing pieces that can also reach a wide audience in their attempt to become "viral."
However, I am here today to defend the listicle and all it's glory. Because, if you think about it, listicles actually make sense in the evolving world of content creation/social media. They allow for consumers to read the article. Think "I like this. It applies to my self-identity and my beliefs and I think that other people should see this and agree with it."
This is not to say the conventional article does not do this, but it does not do so in such a way that is conducive to the social media audience.
Now, Pat brought up several points criticizing the listicle, and I found issue with a few. So, here is my defense.
1. "They're usually poorly researched on the entertainment side, and lazily use other people's images to make punchlines on the humor side," and "Because they require 0 advanced planning."
With any outlet of creation, there will always be "lazy" creators, that's life. People constantly take the easy way out, and unfortunately, we can't do anything to stop it. But, this does not in any way mean that every. single. listicle. is poorly researched.
When I was an intern at the local Scranton newspaper, The Times-Tribune, I wrote a listicle for a print publication. I worked in the Lifestyle department and they wanted to create a list of things to love about the fall in Northeastern Pennsylvania. I loved working on it, because I am always looking for different activities to do in my area. And I will tell you this: I spent at least two weeks on this project. I came up with an original list of about 20 things to do, I was constantly talking with other writers and editors about which items fit in and then would resonate with the most people. And while I couldn't get all the images myself, I did drive around taking pictures to just even be considered to be used in the article.
And while this isn't "serious" or "hard" journalism, it was a piece that a lot of people loved, because it reminded them of what their hometown and area had to offer to them.
2. "Because anyone can do it."
I mean, anyone can do anything. Especially when it comes to the digital age and the reporter. Ever since the internet became a household appliance, there have been platforms setup for publication (LiveJournal, anyone?) The listicle is not creating this hybrid of at home writers, the internet already established that. Bloggers were once considered a threat to the journalist, just like how Twitter trends and fast social media reactions hurt accuracy of stories and reporting. We are in an ever changing system of information gathering and sharing, and that was once considered to be a good thing.
That's like saying, "Well anyone can cook, so fine dining chefs are pointless." There will always be masters in the craft-who do get a lot of recognition, but without those novice players as well- the industry stays stale. Who am I to tell someone else trying to break into the industry that their work is not considered a craft?
Nowadays, people have much shorter attention spans, and they want information they can easily digest. And this isn't a new concept, either. In print journalism, you put all the important information at the top of the story, and the "fluff" at the bottom, because it doesn't matter if people read til the end (SPOILER: They rarely do.)
It is also worth noting that journalism, and storytelling in general, are always constantly evolving. If they weren't, people would stop reading/watching/listening. Once upon a time, we only had each other to rely on for information through word of mouth, and now we are connected globally by technology. It's inevitable that the way in which we receive and share stories will change. It doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it's just the way of the world.
