“Journalists” are bad at math

Many journalists and pundents are proclaiming that Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary by 10 points (AKA “double digits”).

Maybe they have some new way of doing math that I am not aware of, but Hillary received 54.6 of the vote, while Obama received 45.4. And for those of us who attended grade school, 54.6 – 45.4 does not equal 10. But in the world of media spin — and perhaps poor math skills — it apparently does.

For those of you without mental or physical calculators, that comes out to 9.2. Typically when rounding, 9.2 would be rounded down to 9. And if you don’t know how to round properly, 9.2 will suffice.

Now, I’m not sure if the discrepancy is simply due to arithmetic errors or due to certain media members wanting to make Hillary’s win seem bigger (they all said she needed a “double digit” win to soldier on) and thus making the race go on further, which will certainly lead to better ratings and more papers sold.

Frankly, I don’t know which is worse: not possessing basic mathematical skills or deliberately misleading the public for personal (financial) gain.

Even the supposed guardian of American journalism The New York Times couldn’t get the math right. No wonder people don’t trust journalists, especially mainstream media members. They’re always trying to sell you something, and it’s not always the facts.

At least the public has bloggers (notice that 9.2 in the second paragraph?), who apparently aren’t trying to sell the public anything but the truth.

Huffington should have more traffic than Drudge

No one should be shocked that The Huffington Post had better comscore and Nielsen Online numbers than the Drudge Report in February.

February 2008 monthly unique visitors:

Nielsen Online
Huffington Post: 3.7 million
Drudge Report: 3.4 million

comScore
Huffington Post: 2.3 million
Drudge Report: 1.6 million

It has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative or the content on either site. It has everything to do with conversation. The success of the HuffPost is due to the community it has built around user interaction.

The Drudge Report is one of the first and most successful link blogs (and much better at linking to stories than just about any other site or blog). In fact Drudge’s popularity is a testament to how good Drudge is at sorting through news and finding interesting stories. The Drudge Report is almost entirely repurposed content, with an occasional scoop, while being completely devoid of any sort of community features.

The HuffPost is totally different. It does a lot of the same linking that Drudge does, but that’s not why it’s popular. Don’t try to out-Drudge Drudge because that’s a suicide mission.

So, the HuffPost decided to allow users to comment on stories and it built an impressive network of bloggers. This blog post at the HuffPost already has 500 comments on it.

Not only have community features allowed the HuffPost to garner a huge following, but those features have also allowed the site to be valued at $70 million. Compare that with a valuation of $10 million for Drudge.

The thing is, these two sites are not competitors. One is merely a site of links that has been widely accepted within MSM circles (especially among journalists who consider Drudge and Romenesko mandatory reading), while the other is partisan community site. That community aspect is why the sites are nothing alike, while the partisan aspect allows the HuffPost to hone in on a niche — albeit a very large one.

There are not many lessons to learn from the Drudge Report, because its success is probably not replicable, but the HuffPost is a great template for 21st-century media success. It’s built around a niche and community. That’s the formula for Web success.