Regarding my first job, this piece is not written as criticism, but simply to help everyone understand an environment closer to reality. Perhaps things have changed recently. Because of this work, I became more sensitive to writing articles and observing current events. Sometimes learning doesn't show immediate results; instead, it requires time to ferment and integrate before you realize what you've learned.
I spent about a year working in online media. Articles pushed to the official fan page were hot and trending, and the interactions between netizens and editors seemed fun and passionate, leading many people to think working in online news media was quite enjoyable—eating well, chatting casually, going out in groups with colleagues. But in reality, the true environment behind the scenes was filled only with the cold, bloody sound of keyboard clicks.
"Click click click click click click click click"—everyone staring intently at their computer screens, hands constantly shuttling back and forth over keyboards, earbuds in, immersed in their own worlds. Everyone was competing on speed, nothing but speed. Many online media outlets required in-house editors and assistant editors to produce 7-10 news articles per day. To meet this "performance," everyone frantically searched the internet, quickly copying and modifying content, treating it as their own original news piece going live. Back then, I was terrified to come to the office, wanting only to wear earbuds and shut out the keyboard noise.
Because of this ecosystem, the seemingly bustling and fun online media and news outlets actually have work environments filled only with keyboard sounds—quite desolate and silent. Any casual conversation would draw stares. Not only that, even occasional discussions of news content would be dismissed as fooling around. After prolonged silence, people stopped speaking face-to-face with colleagues, formed small chat groups, and quietly chatted while working, pretending to be serious. Not only that, even colleagues sitting right next to you felt too embarrassed to speak directly; everything was solved through private messages. Is it efficient? Actually, it just meant poor relationships, where text can package any emotion.
Beyond the chilling environment, the company cared only about click-through rates, because clicks meant selling ads. Therefore, so-called "news" was just searches through PTT, Dcard, and other major forums for trending posts. Anything that could spark widespread netizen response was considered good news. Serious international news, financial news, and political news truly went ignored.
How much do click-through rates differ? How do they compare? Based on my own experience, typically a single article reaching over 50,000 views was considered acceptable news, 100,000-200,000 was quite good. For very interesting and trending internet-sourced news—whether heartwarming or amusing—click counts could reach over 500,000, even approaching 1 million. An individual's monthly clicks could exceed 10 million.
How slow are slow news articles? Sometimes a slow-moving finance article wouldn't exceed 1,000 views even after a year. Normally, these harder-topic articles might reach around 5,000 views, or if good, 10,000-20,000. The difference is substantial. Therefore, for companies that treat click-through rates as gospel, internet searches and light news were "good news."
Because of this atmosphere, passionate journalists and those capable of writing quality news who were drawn to online media for its "passion," "vibrancy," and "fun" had their news passion extinguished, choosing to leave or change careers—either returning to traditional media or giving up journalism entirely. Of course, many remained for high salaries and seemingly "promising career positions," but behind it all lay "many, many regrets."
The definition of good news has completely changed from the past. How to maintain your original intention amid the chaos and torrents is what matters most.
