In 1833, Benjamin Day launched the New York Sun as a “cash and carry” paper—employing hundreds of newsboys to hawk his product every morning on the street corners—and changed the newspaper business forever. Almost immediately, it ended the dominance of the subscriber-based party press and ushered in the era of Bennett, Pulitzer, and Hearst with their sensational, vicious, and rapid-fire “yellow papers.”
One small change in distribution changed everything, including how and what the newspapers wrote. Because newspapers were now sold on a per-issue basis each morning, the headlines of each paper went head to head for a finite share of attention. The most exciting, not the most accurate, won. In my book, I call this the One-off Problem.
The One-off Problem dominated the newspaper industry for decades, and ultimately was—according to many—responsible for everything from mob violence to the Spanish-American war. Its dominance lasted until the re-emergence of news-by-subscription, pushed by Adolph Ochs at The New York Times. As a result, thankfully, for the last three quarters of a century news has been governed by this stabilizer: Consumers pay by subscribing, and publishers protect subscriptions by delivering a quality, valuable product.
But blogs have brought the One-off Problem back.
Audiences don’t consume blogs like by subscription, they consume them just like they consumed yellow papers—whichever one catches their attention at that moment. A quick look at the traffic sources for blogs confirms this: Referral sources like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other aggregators combine to dwarf the direct traffic that sites get. RSS is dead. The Huffington Post doesn’t arrive on your doorstep, you read it when people email you links (and then later you click the most titillating headlines and the “Most Read” and “Related” articles that come along with them).
Blogs compete on a per-article basis, and so here we are in 2011, on our fancy Macbooks and high-speed broadband, stuck with the same bogus headlines they had in the 19th century.
From today: Naked Lady Gaga Talks Drugs and Celibacy; Hugh Hefner: I Am Not a Sex Slave Rapist in a Palace of Poop; The Top Nine Videos of Babies Farting and/or Laughing with Kittens; How Justin Bieber Caught a Contagious Syphilis Rumor; Little Girl Slaps Mom with Piece of Pizza, Saves Life
Compare those with some classic headlines from the late 19th and early 20th centuries: War Will Be Declared In Fifteen Minutes; Couldn’t Sell His Ear, Old Man Shoots Himself; Owl Frightens Woman To Death In Hospital; Bulldog Tries To Kill Young Girl He Hates; Cat Gave Tenants Nightly ‘Creeps’
As magician Ricky Jay once put it, “People respond to and are deceived by the same things they were a hundred years ago.” The One-off Problem is ugly, no matter what century. Only today, the headlines aren’t being yelled on busy street corners but on noisy aggregators and social networks.
Let’s compare two leaks. One from the era of subscription news and one from me, in the era of blogs.
A: In 1971, The New York Times titled its first story on the Pentagon Papers—leaked by Daniel Ellsberg—in typically understated fashion: “Vietnam Archive: A Consensus to Bomb Developed Before ’64 Election, Study Says”
B: In 2010, I orchestrated a fake leak to the blog Jezebel, which is owned by Gawker. Pretending to be an American Apparel employee, I told them I had stolen some photographs from the company’s servers (in reality we couldn’t use them for legal reasons). Their headline: “Exclusive: American Apparel’s Rejected Halloween Costume Ideas (American Appalling).” Overstating has its rewards: The post drew nearly 100,000 pageviews—even though the content was nothing but some extra photographs from an ad campaign.
Granted, the stakes in these two leaks are hardly comparable, but my point is not the substance but the presentation. Imagine a blogger understating a headline because he or she felt the story was too important to sensationalize. They wouldn’t. That’s not their job. They exaggerate and deceive their readers, and are paid well to do it.
Their ideal, our nightmare

This is an interesting, clear, and concise warning to all of journalism. The question is 1.) will it be heeded 2.) will Mr. Holiday put his money where his mouth is and try to do better himself.
#1 Posted by Janet Dean, CJR on Thu 19 Jul 2012 at 04:02 PM
Ah; so apparently print journalism is in the crapper because of those naughty, yellowpress blogs. Nothing to do with the point that print media long since gave up accuracy for sensationalism themselves? Which is the chicken and which the egg? As for sensationalism driving views, that's likely true. And yet, at least a few people read sources for information and not just affirmation or topless models found in headless bars. A consistently accurate and trustworthy site gets my views (as few as they are) every day. The Sun or the Daily Mail or Huffpo only gets my views by virtue of a link from a site I trust.
#2 Posted by JohnR, CJR on Thu 19 Jul 2012 at 04:27 PM
Uhh, isn't CJR part of the problem here? Why give Holliday column space about himself? Didn't you just get p'wned?
Why not an interview, or a Chittum column about him, instead?
#3 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Thu 19 Jul 2012 at 09:41 PM
Kind of ironic to write a blog post about...I mean, he clearly makes good points - our media system needs a change. But he says right here it's his job to exploit blogs - so is he taking his own advice, or continuing to take advantage?
#4 Posted by Eric, CJR on Thu 19 Jul 2012 at 11:25 PM
Agree with Eric - while the points Holiday makes in this post are valid - has he really come clean? Not sure if I am sold on his goal of reform.
#5 Posted by JBux, CJR on Fri 20 Jul 2012 at 12:48 AM
After getting my google reader and RSS feeds filled with articles and blog posts about or by Ryan Holiday today....right on the relase of his book....gives me the hint that, yeah, this guy knows what he's doing.
I agree with previous posters - it will be very interesting to see what Holiday's next move will be after this book. Will we see another Tucker Max media stunt soon again? Or will we see a dramatic change in online journalism?
#6 Posted by Lionel D, CJR on Fri 20 Jul 2012 at 02:49 AM
Until we consider the sort of work Holiday does as 'litter' in a more literal sense of the word, we are unlikely to see things change. Driving readers and consumers away from thinking in page-clicks is a baby step forward, one already thriving in the zeitgeist these days. Its not a stretch to say many are revolted by what they see and experience in the news these days and have turned off entirely.
#7 Posted by Pia Sawhney, CJR on Tue 24 Jul 2012 at 11:34 AM