Goodbye to the scoop

Marketwatch columnist Jon Friedman laments the disappearance of the journalistic scoop. Remember when a reporter would revel in "beating" everybody else to a story? And when competitors had to scramble to "match" a scoop?

But ego gratification aside, I have to wonder: How much do scoops still matter in the thick of the digital revolution? Not so much, I'm afraid. With the exception of a Watergate-like bombshell, news exclusives don't mean as much as they used to, I'd argue, with hand over heart.

How long does a scoop last nowadays on the internet? Ten seconds, maybe?

Part of the reason why scoop journalism is disappearing, he says, is because of the way success is measured.

In the old days -- way back in the late 20th century, before the Internet took hold -- a newspaper could celebrate a scoop for 24 hours. No more. Today, it lasts as long as it takes for an editor in another newsroom to press the "send" button, immediately matching the exclusive.

Then there is the business consideration. For many newsrooms, the process of getting a scoop may no longer be cost-effective. On the Web, a scoop may not be the most widely read piece on a site. That matters, as we move more toward a world of accountability. Often, media bosses determine an online story's success by how many clicks it attracted.

The Internet makes it possible for publishers and editors to measure a story's worth according to three criteria: most read, most emailed and most reader comments generated.

As if this new reality of digital publishing isn't unsettling enough for a reporter or a columnist to ponder, coming soon to a Web site near you: The powers-that-be will clamor to add a fourth variable. They'll be measuring precisely how much time readers/consumers are spending on each individual story.