TAKE THE NJ.COM NO CLICK PLEDGE

[bryanjints]

I join the pledge crusade, it would help if no one linked anything also

I'm taking it a step further and ignoring anyone that posts a link. Ifeveryone takes that pledge we will stop driving site traffic their way.

 

[RUInsanity]

I'm not here to win hearts and minds, just to express my own opinion. I respect your right to disagree.

To be clear, I thought the Ledger's editorial was unabashed bullshit, but I didn't consider it the basis for an editorial blackout. If I'm not able to confront editorial idiocy with rigorous counterargument, then what does it say about my ability to mount an effective critical response to mindless board room bloviation? -- essentially, the basis for my entire education at Rutgers.

Boycotts are boring.

You should be making that counter argument there. If you have been paying attention over the years you will have noticed a tremendous decline int he quality of material presented by that news source. The sports section in particular has been hard hit with staff attrition - due to the fact that the paper is bleeding. It has basically become a place for imported filler from AP and NY Papers combined with Shock type opinion pieces. But if that is your preference for gathering the news - so be it.

 

[RCTrooper]

NJ.com has the most comprehensive free Rutgers Football coverage of any site on the web. I'm not about to give that up because someone is thin-skinned enough to be outraged by the tone and tenor of Advance Media's coverage of Rutgers issues.

Stop reading Rutgers news because I don't like the way this group of nitwits us covering us? If you think you need to be a part of a populist movement to "harm" NJ.com because you think they're on a mission to slag Rutgers, you give that news site and its readers far too much credit for their influence, and you're elevating "better press coverage" from 149th to 1st on the list of things Rutgers people should be worried about fixing at Rutgers.

Just one man's viewpoint, but this association of like-minded people doesn't come off sounding like the McLaughlin Group when it starts espousing commitments not to read conflicting viewpoints or be well informed about the tone being set by the press in the marketplace of ideas.

Rutgers is still last on the list of Big Ten endowments. Last on the list of donors as a percentage of living alumni. Worst on-field win percentage of any athletic department in the Big Ten in 2014/5. I totally get the need to take out that frustration on the organs that are seemingly piling on our inability to control our own destiny, but I think our energy and interest is better focused on the things that we can do to build our brand than it is identifying and labeling our enemies.

The people who lead those movements are not the builders of great things.

I agree that Rutgers suffers from many things: state funding (in non-inflation adjusted dollars) at the same level it received in 1994, declining admission standards, bureaucratic inefficiencies and a college experience that does not compel alumni to add to the endowment. That being said, NJ.com's speculative and sensationalistic coverage of RU sports (in an attempt to drive clicks) does nothing but weaken (in most cases, unfairly) people's view (and subsequent support) of our university.

Let's say you have cancer and a bad knee that needs replacing. Would you not go to the dentist to fill a cavity because there are bigger things that you have to worry about? Yes Rutgers alum have many issues that should concern them but it doesn't mean that we cannot address smaller problems that are causing harm.

 

[RU-Kidding]

I agree that Rutgers suffers from many things: state funding (in non-inflation adjusted dollars) at the same level it received in 1994, declining admission standards, bureaucratic inefficiencies and a college experience that does not compel alumni to add to the endowment. That being said, NJ.com's speculative and sensationalistic coverage of RU sports (in an attempt to drive clicks) does nothing but weaken (in most cases, unfairly) people's view (and subsequent support) of our university.

Let's say you have cancer and a bad knee that needs replacing. Would you not go to the dentist to fill a cavity because there are bigger things that you have to worry about? Yes Rutgers alum have many issues that should concern them but it doesn't mean that we cannot address smaller problems that are causing harm.

bump

 

[SanFranRutgers]

San Fran,

Is there anything they could do to stop you from supporting them? I, for one, don't understand this mentality.

I deleted the app, plenty of info on APP, this site and others.

I don't consider "reading the paper" to be the same as "supporting them." Perhaps that's where we differ in our analysis.

I'm wasted eyeballs for their advertisers, and the coverage doesn't cost me a penny.

[edit: My only real problem with NJ Advance Publications is that their rickety comments section doesn't have an "Ignore" feature to render invisible the comments from the site's most notorious and persistent trolls. That tends to support the argument that the site -- and the comments section, therein -- are merely there to generate clicks and engagement, and -- subsequently -- "stickiness," regardless of the actual "news value" to the community.]

 

[MikeRU1766]

I don't consider "reading the paper" to be the same as "supporting them." Perhaps that's where we differ in our analysis.

I'm wasted eyeballs for their advertisers, and the coverage doesn't cost me a penny.

[edit: My only real problem with NJ Advance Publications is that their rickety comments section doesn't have an "Ignore" feature to render invisible the comments from the site's most notorious and persistent trolls. That tends to support the argument that the site -- and the comments section, therein -- are merely there to generate clicks and engagement, and -- subsequently -- "stickiness," regardless of the actual "news value" to the community.]

Well either way whether you consider yourself "empty eyeballs" or not, advertisers cannot make that distinction. Advertisers can only go by total number of viewers or clicks. That is why so many websites now are all about posting "click bait" articles because it is a great way to get your overall viewers count up which the site can then use during negotiations with advertisers to demand higher prices. So by going to their website and reading their articles you absolutely ARE supporting them whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[SanFranRutgers]

Well either way whether you consider yourself "empty eyeballs" or not, advertisers cannot make that distinction. Advertisers can only go by total number of viewers or clicks. That is why so many websites now are all about posting "click bait" articles because it is a great way to get your overall viewers count up which the site can then use during negotiations with advertisers to demand higher prices. So by going to their website and reading their articles you absolutely ARE supporting them whether you want to admit it or not.

Thanks. I did this for a living.