Headlines: Since you’ve been reading news on the Web, have you noticed that the quality of headlines ain’t what it used to be? Well, there’s a reason for that.

A New York Times article found on News.com explains that “This boring headline is written for Google.” Since many people now find their news through search or news aggregators that depend on algorithms that scan keywords, headlines are now full of those keywords. Instead of appealing to the reader, the headline must appeal to a robot. This practice increasingly growing on journalists is part of “search engine optimization,” already a billion-dollar industry.

In order to “optimize” their Web visibility, newspapers are using different headlines between Internet and print for the same story. They even vary the headline for the same story between homepage and article page, in case a reader accesses the newspaper through the homepage and needs to be enticed to read an article.

A tip for Web journalists is to find the top two or three keywords that their readers type into Google and use them frequently in headlines and lead paragraphs. For example, if you go to the homepage of the Editors Weblog and scan the Analysis column you’ll notice that the words “newspaper” and “journalism” are predominant in headlines. This isn’t for of lack of creativity but because many people looking for news on newspapers and journalism find our postings through Google.

Quick fix vs. deep interest: The manner in which people read the news is changing. Pressed for time, they scan the headlines and maybe a paragraph or two to get an idea of what’s happening in the world. If a subject interests them more, they don’t necessarily seek nitty-gritty details so much as analysis, the “why” and the “what does this mean”.

In the online world, news aggregators give a free quick news fix whereas real analysis (not opinion) is still fairly sparse and tends to be behind a paywall.

In the print world, this manner of reading is reflected in the rapid rise and popularity of free commuter papers whose articles are short and to the point and the success that analytical weeklies such as the Economist and the New Yorker have had in recent years.

Daily newspapers are stuck in the middle; they provide the nitty-gritty details for which the busy reader has little patience (details that can just as easily be found through Google if really necessary) alongside columnist opinion that doesn’t equate to analysis and is often bested by subject-specific blogs.

But there is a way that newspapers can emerge from the middle.

Newspapers as aggregators: Newspapers need to realize that in an internationally connected world, they are not the be all and end all of news. In fact, they are just the beginning.

When a reader finds a subject that interests her, she is not going to stop at your paper. She wants to know what other people and publications, be it newspaper, television, radio or blog, think about the subject. She needs an aggregator. Not an aggregator like Google News whose algorithms find 150 links to the same article in different papers. But an aggregator she can trust to send her to the most informed commentary and analysis.

Columbia University professor Eli Noam concluded last July that “today’s newspapers become tomorrow’s aggregators,” a conclusion that is true in a certain sense (stay tuned for tomorrow’s posting). Newspapers have always had a trusted brand name which today they should be using as leverage to attract readers on the Internet.

The Washington Post is probably the best example of a major paper linking to outside publications. It leads readers to comments on its pieces, to commentary at other publications, often invites readers to participate in online discussions, and allows them to use its content to create original “mash-ups.”

Such a strategy will no doubt reinforce reader satisfaction. But what does aggregating and linking do for the paper’s brand name and revenues? Find out tomorrow…

Sources: News.com