Giving the readers what they want


Susan Delacourt argues the media’s fascination with Justin Trudeau is driven by reader fascination.

Many of us who made the trek to that out-of-the-way, crowded auditorium in Montreal on Tuesday night were there to watch Trudeau launch his campaign for one main reason: readers demanded it. Every time we put anything about Trudeau on our web pages or Twitter feeds, our readership numbers go through the roof. Can we explain this? Not really…

There’s a little gadget on Twitter, for instance, called bitly. It shortens weblinks to fit more tidily in the 140-character limits, which is handy. Even handier, though, is the “stats page.” It shows you which of those shortened links is getting the most web traffic, and where the clicks are coming from. I guess I don’t need to tell you that on my stats page this week, the links I posted about Trudeau were generating hundreds and hundreds of clicks, while non-Trudeau links attracted a few dozen here and there.

Here at, you can read Jason Lietaer’s eight questions about Justin Trudeau. (And don’t forget to pick up this week’s print edition with Justin Trudeau on the cover and an interview with the Liberal leadership candidate inside.)


Giving the readers what they want

  1. Trudeaumania is simply a supply and demand affair. You’d think conservatives could appreciate it, especially since so many of them click on those links to post how they feel about him!

    • I think it’s the supply part of the equation they don’t like.

  2. In a Parliament of boredom, stodginess, stupidity, constant bickering, backwardness and repetition…suddenly there is the possibllity of change,

    Of course people want to hear about Justin.

    • Really? Justin would change things? How? The man has no experience, his time in Parliament has been an embarrassment, consisting of boxing matches and hyper-partisan tirades.

      His famous name isn’t going to change anything. If he wins, the Liberal Party will be finished forever.

      • Rather wishful thinking on your part. JT has star power, and that counts for a lot in politics. Since when does a politician need substance to be successful?
        The closest analogue to JT is the progeny of Jack and Jackie Kennedy, who were both media magnets. The media could also not get enough of their son, until his unfortunate demise. The media was fascinated by both Pierre and Margaret Trudeau, so naturally they are fascinated with their progeny, especially Justin.

        • I think the question should be – since when do politicians not need substance to be successful. Comparing today’s politicians to those of PET’s time – to Lewis, to Stanfield and even to Clark, Levesque or Lougheed is as silly as trying to compare Justin Bieber to Gordon Lightfoot, or Lady Gaga to Janis Joplin. There was a time when politicians had substance and artists practised their art. Nowadays they’re above all media personalities. JT at 40 is no different then SH at 40. Both are viewed as offering change, for the sake of it.

        • You’re on record as not liking him either. Mind you, that’s when you were still carrying a torch for Ignatieff. I’m sure you’ll have some explanation about how “he’s grown up” or something along those lines.

          • I think you’ve confused me with someone else…I’m not a Lib

            Nor have I said anything about liking any of them.

      • I find it heartwarming that Conservatives are so concerned for the well-being of the Liberal party. Clearly the pundits who said Conservatives are plotting to destroy the party are way off base…

        • I like it too, I being a Liberal, but still… …since when did the Conservatives like the Liberals? I thought that was the thing they publicly hate the most!

  3. Giving the readers what they want: Trudeau’s flattering pose on the front cover. Giving the readers what they don’t want: In time, Justin stepping out of politics after he looses the bid to become leader of the party (a promise given – imho – to his wife when he entered the race )
    (I’m still waiting to have Ignatieff on the front cover announcing that indeed he did decide to go back into teaching…..)

    • The fact you’re here complaining makes Delacourt’s point. She didn’t say the clicks were all pro.

      • I comment on many topics. Commenting on Trudeau is just one of such topics. Me commenting on Trudeau is not out of the ordinary.
        It is you, my friend who does not understand her point: suddenly many people comment on Trudeau who otherwise would not comment at all on other topics (other than perhaps topics such as Big Bird or which other empty tweet of the day to follow and repeeeeeeeet!)
        Repeeeet, repeeeet said the tweet!

        • So, they created the demand where there was none, so you claim? I think i’ll stick with my understanding of her post thanks.

  4. Sounds like a Frank Graves poll.

  5. Ha ha ha. Suppliers being condemned for responding to Demand. ha ha ha.

  6. “…….Every time we put anything about Trudeau on our web pages or Twitter feeds, our readership numbers go through the roof…….”

    If readership numbers are important, try conflating the following ‘words’ in a title: ‘Trudeau’, ‘Hitler’, ‘Avro Arrow’ and ‘Child Pornography’.

    I would have changed the location of the verb and written your first sentence:
    “Many of us who made the trek to that out-of-the-way, crowded auditorium in Montreal on Tuesday night to watch Trudeau launch his campaign were there for one main reason: readers demanded it.”
    Were you there for ‘one main reason’ or were you there to ‘watch (Mr.) Trudeau launch his campaign’? I think my version supports the former, yours the latter. Yes?

  7. That’s the media. After the King of the World.