About my first job, I'm writing this not as criticism, but to help people understand an environment closer to the truth. Though things may have changed since then, this job made me more sensitive when writing articles and observing current events. Sometimes learning isn't immediately apparent; rather, it requires time to ferment and sink in before you realize what you've learned.
I worked at an online media outlet for about a year. Articles pushed to the official fan page were hot and popular, with interactions between netizens and editors seeming fun and enthusiastic, leading many to believe working in online news media was quite enjoyable—eating well, chatting, hanging out in groups with colleagues. But in reality, the true environment behind the scenes was filled only with the cold, heartless sound of keyboard clicks.
"Click click click click click click click." Everyone stared intently at their computer screens, hands constantly moving back and forth across keyboards, headphones on, immersed in their own worlds. Everyone competed on speed—nothing but speed. Many online media outlets required in-house editors and assistant editors to produce 7-10 news pieces per day to meet these "performance" targets. To achieve this, everyone frantically searched the internet, quickly copying and modifying content, then posting it as their own original news. Back then, I dreaded coming to the office, wanting only to put on my headphones and shut out the keyboard sounds.
Because of this ecosystem, the seemingly lively and interesting world of online media and news was actually filled only with keyboard sounds in the real work environment—quite dead and silent. Whenever someone did chat, they'd draw stares. Not only that, even discussions about news content would be called goofing around. Over time, people stopped talking to colleagues face-to-face, instead creating small group chats, quietly chatting while pretending to work. 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? Not really, it just means poor relationships. Text messages simply package all emotions away.
It wasn't just the environment that chilled people; the company focused solely on click-through rates, since clicks mean ad revenue. So-called "news" was just searches through popular posts on PTT, Dcard, and other forums. Any news that sparked wide netizen response was considered good news. Serious international news, finance news, and political news were truly neglected.
How different were click-through rates? Based on my experience, a single article reaching fifty thousand clicks was considered decent news. 100,000-200,000 was considered very good. For fun and trending web-search news—whether heartwarming or entertaining—clicks could reach 500,000 or more, even approaching one million. One person's monthly clicks could exceed 10 million.
Just how unpopular was unpopular news? A niche finance article sometimes wouldn't reach a thousand clicks even after a year. For these harder-topic pieces, they usually achieved around five thousand clicks, maybe up to 10,000-20,000 on a good day—quite a difference. So for a company that treated click-through rates as gospel, web-search and light-hearted news were the "good news."
Because of this trend, passionate journalists who chose online media for its "enthusiasm," "vibrancy," and "fun," as well as those capable of writing quality news, had their journalistic passion extinguished and chose to leave—either returning to traditional media or abandoning journalism altogether. Of course, many stayed for high salaries and seemingly "promising career positions," but carried "countless frustrations" behind them.
The definition of good news has completely changed from the past. How to maintain your original intention amid chaotic currents is what truly matters.
