The 'Who' Behind the 'What': Author Context as Meta-Information
100%. This is essential for meta context. This is already happening.
People have always been interested in knowing how the stories take shape and more about the authors. The "who" behind the "what" adds essential context.
For example, In Frontline magazine, I always see that the users who read stories via Author profiles have much more engagement than other users. This was due to two reasons.
One, people were curious about the author after reading the story (We had more details about the author below the story). Less bounces and more time on page here as readers usually explore more and find another story to read from the same author page.
Two, a set of people wanted to know more about the author before reading that story, so that they can understand the full context behind the story. Usually, users quickly come back to the original story to continue reading. But much fewer bounces and more time on page here as readers have better context.
This was a signal that simply giving a better context or background about the author of the story increases engagement on the story. So we added a short bio on the top of the story explaining the author's experience and expertise in their domain. This has increased engagement significantly on the article and author pages.
And guess what, the most searched terms in Frontline are actually author names. Now we have an authors showcase coming up.
So, Author context is one layer of this meta-information. Readers comments can be another form of social context that contribute significantly to a meta context that's necessary for a reader to get the full value from the story.
If we are putting so much effort in journalism and content, we should also put some effort in sharing how the 'sausage' is made. People love it.
(The above applies to all forms of content - text, audio or video)
The post this responded to, by Jon Laurence:
The news industry is about to undergo our version of the horsemeat scandal - thanks to generative AI.
For those who aren't familiar, this happened in Europe in the 2010s. Meat sold as beef had partly come from horses. Consumers started looking for food that was traceable as a result - as they always do in the aftermath of revelations like this.
Traceability is about to become much more important for news organizations. Audiences are going to be less and less certain about the provenance of what they're consuming - as generative AI will shortly allow anyone to replicate the visual grammar of news content, and publishers themselves may not always be transparent about how their material is generated.
I think that there are four things that the news industry can do now to get ahead of this.
the NYT uses 'enhanced bylines', that summarize the newsgathering process/the expertise of the authors. These should become the norm.
news organizations should consider what published editorial standards should look like - to anticipate the needs of consumers who have more questions than ever about how the material has been gathered.
journalists should start documenting their process more within their reports - and being more transparent about how they are made. The how is going to become as important as the what.
both brands and individual journalists should build opportunities into their routines to engage with the audience on questions like these.
There was little point in doing this when there was a closed circle of publishers with high costs to entry. Stories about journalistic process were boring.
But more and more - people are going to want to know exactly how the sausage gets made.