And that's why I think focusing on the written word itself as the vehicle for high-quality journalism is a mistake. I don't think that's the only way to do it.
It's easier than ever to graze on low quality, tabloid journalism -- "linkbait," if you will. Sensational headlines and puff pieces have always existed, and has always helped sell both tabloids and even more respected publications. But the web and social media make it easier to indulge in this sort of thing, and once you've clicked on one bit of linkbait -- or even a serious news story -- you're presented with a list of additional linkbaity stories.
Given the high demand, and low cost to produce, it's little wonder we see more and more churnalism and linkbait.
How expensive can it be if you guys are getting content for free in exchange for "exposure" ;)
I'm also not talking about video. I'm talking about interactive storytelling that combines interactive elements with strong narrative elements that gives people the ability to explore, and that can grow over time.
It might cost more to produce, but it also isn't a one-shot thing. If you were to take what the Atlantic did on gun violence and you had built something a little more substantial around it, something that broke outside of the web template, and committed to adding to it over time, you could continue extracting value out of it for a long time.
When things like "explainers" are produced, they usually sort of fade away after a while because they're released in the same episodic format most journalism is, even though they don't really work the same way.
For instance, This American Life's "Giant Pool of Money" is as relevant now as it was when it was produced, but to find it you have to look in a date-based archive. That doesn't make any sense.