Subscribe to RSS

Feb 28th

A Discussion of Ethics & Blogging for Disaster

Chile Earthquake 2010My sense of ethics is as hot as my coffee this morning.

One one side, I’m appreciative of blog posts like 20 Incredible Pictures From The Chile Earthquake (from Forrest Kobayashi) and Chile Earthquake Pictures: Twitter Photos Tell the Story (from Mashable) for covering the earthquake in Chile and the pending tsunami warnings in almost 50 countries.  In our house, the only television access we have is driven a digital receiver box that allows us to pick up about 4 channels.  If it weren’t for the two blogs above and trending topics on Twitter, I wouldn’t have even known anything was happening Chile at all.  It’s a terrible tragedy.

Artie Isaac taught me the dangers of consuming too much TV a long time ago, and so we’ve opted out of cable and hours of mindless starring.  The downside is that we don’t have CNN or MSNBC or ESPN.  Bummer.

On the other side, I’m troubled.  I’m troubled by the apparent intentions of these blogs.  I ask myself this: For bloggers that normally cover topics surrounding technology and the web and social media, why the sudden shift in content?  Why is it suddenly so important to cover a tremendous natural disaster thousands of miles away?

The answer is simple.  Tragedy, death and destruction mean one thing on the Interwebz: increased search engine queries on related keywords.  For a smart blogger, that means an opportunity to capture more search traffic.

For instance, look at the post titles versus the actual title tags that sit behind the page where the search engine crawlers do their work:

  • Mashable Title Tag: http://mashable.com/2010/02/27/chile-earthquake-twitpics/
  • Kobayashi Title Tag: http://www.forrestkobayashi.com/496/20-incredible-chile-earthquake-pictures

These titles have been strategically (and intentionally) optimized, especially Mashable’s title.  Think about it.  What phrase would you Google if you wanted to see what happened in Chile?

Everyone is talking about Chile.  And when everyone is talking, everyone is also searching Google.

Real Intention
I have no problem with writing posts to reap the benefits of current issues on the web.  I do it all the time.  But where does the ethical line become blurred? I do think the approach of the two posts above is interesting.  Each uses a variety of Twitpics to show the damage from the earthquake.  That’s an innovative combination of technologies and one could make a case for topical relevance.

But, come on.  Really?  Let’s call a spade a spade.  Is the intention of these posts to raise awareness of the tragedy in Chile, or is it to up their blog’s search traffic for the day?  For me, this content approach is equivalent to the people you see who hold up traffic on the highway, just so they can stop and stare at the carnage of a bad traffic accident.

Is It Worth It?
Trust me, as a blogger, I love search traffic to my blog.  I love watching my Google Analytics spike when I hit a post that resonates with you.  For me, it’s a sort of a game.  And I like winning.

But considering the posts mentioned above, is the increase in traffic even worth it?  If your normal topic focus is related to technology, marketing and matters surrounding the Interwebz, how is traffic related to a catastrophic event in another country going to help you in the long-term?  Will any of those readers become subscribers?  Will they ever leave a comment on another post?  Will you have the chance to develop a valuable relationship?  Maybe, but probably not…

What’s your take?

Jump To Comments

Do You Like This Article? Share It!

Related Articles

This Article Is Tagged With:

Join The Discussion!

View Comments
  • @nick - I agree with you totally. What I like about the blogosphere is the integrity. But that seems to be fading across the board in the recent years...
  • @forrest - I'm glad you responded. Please don't take this as an attack on you or your blog personally. You make a good point. As a personal brand blogger, you have the liberty to cover whatever you want. Likewise, you have a background in journalism, so I understand your interest in the topic.

    That said, are you going to tell me that there was no intention on your part to leverage the search traffic?

    I think that the real sin rides with Mashable here. Mashable has branded it self as a go-to resource for all things social media. While they seem to have found a way to tie in their content approach with the natural disaster, my gut is that they simple are focused on providing good traffic numbers to their advertisers. To me, that's a cheap sell out.

    PS. I still like your blog and what you right about. Sometimes though, the pot needs stirred and things need discussed in the open. Cheers and thanks to you for being willing to discuss the issue... :)
  • Hi Nate,

    I wanted to provide you with some insight into my reasoning for providing this post on my blog.

    This was an incident that had a widespread effect on, and had significant value for, many people. I felt it was necessary to produce a post to cover it, and a photo gallery was the best way to go about it.

    In addition, I follow some people on Twitter who were directly impacted by the Chilean earthquake and the resulting Hawaii tsunami warnings. The whole Chilean earthquake and Hawaii tsunami warnings were relevant news stories I took extremely seriously.

    It's also worth noting that my website is a personal website and is branded as such on the front page and the about page. While I cover social media as a key topic, I feel I have every right to determine when to cover a new topic—understanding that the website is in fact a personal one, and not for business.
  • Great blog topic Nate!

    It's interesting that you point this out, it sounds like the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality in TV news. The interesting point to me is that most folks I know who consume media via social media outlets, do so to get away from that type of mentality. As social media continues to gain mainstream interaction and "numbers", it will be interesting to see if the main players fall into the "whatever drives cheap views" outlook on content. I hope not.
  • Good point, Nate, and I think that I am guilty of it to some extent because it was so compelling. We have to determine how we want to present ourselves in each of the media platforms and then keep that focus. Just because there was some good coverage on the Chile disaster does not mean that I am going to be worth following on Monday. Good food for thought, as usual.
blog comments powered by Disqus