Anyone who has been following our Search Engine Optimisation guide (SEO) will know that one of the most important things to decide before you start building a website is which keywords you’re going to focus on. Choosing keywords that are both relevant to your website, and that are also being used frequently on search engines, will decide how much potential traffic those search engines are going to send to your website.

So if choosing certain keywords plays a roll in how much traffic your website gets, do some website builders and publishers only choose those keywords that can in fact bring lots of traffic? Undoubtedly so, and there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as the keywords are highly relevant to what the web page is all about. But what if you’re a news organisation? Do you choose stories – and keywords – to write about simply because they will get visitors onto your site, rather than them being genuinely in the news?

This was the charge levied at thetelegraph.co.uk in a recent article in satirical news magazine Private eye. It was claimed that stories on the telegraph website were being chosen simply for keyword popularity, in order to drive more traffic onto the website. Moreover, the article suggested that reporters were required to stuff as many keywords as possible into the opening paragraph, to improve the chances of that article ranking more highly, and therefore getting more traffic. The text from Private Eye reads: “Telegraph news hacks are sent a memo three or four times a day listing the top subjects being searched in the last few hours on Google. They are then expected to write stories accordingly and/or get as many of those keywords as possible into the first part of their story”.

We recently discussed how theguardian.co.uk tried keyword stuffing – with a particularly ‘fruity’ theme – to whether it is possible to trick Google into boosting some football pages onto the first page for less seemly search terms. And it worked. But surely a large and respected news organisation such as the telegraph must report the actual news, as objectively as possible, rather than allow user searches to define what makes it into the news, mustn’t they?

Shane Richmond, the communities editor attempted to dismiss the story by responding: “Normally I’d chuckle and move on, but the Private Eye item seems to have caused a little confusion, which I want to dispel”.

The Telegraph, apparently, does push their reporters towards using certain keywords, but this is to help readers to find stories, rather than the other way around, whereby stories are written so that they fall into the path of the searching public.

“So yes, of course, that’s what we do and our staff are regularly updated on the performance of our stories in search engines and told when a vital key word is missing”, continued Richmond.

But he also strongly contested that specific keywords were compulsory, and nor were keywords playing a role in what made it into the news.

It all sounds like quite a fine line, and illustrates how ‘the news’ is a two way dialogue between broadcasters and consumers. Anyone relaying the news must always shape their stories to their audience. That, for example, is why a huge event in a distant land appears as the fourth item on the news whilst a UK celebrity choosing to adopt a baby can make it into top spot. There is most clearly describes the symbiotic relationship between reader and writer, between news giver and news receiver.

Of course bloggers have always known that if they have any hope of attracting new readers from the search engines then they have to lay down stories that have a chance of appearing highly on some high traffic keywords.

So, news receiver, lets swap roles. What do you think? Your feedback is always appreciated – show me how symbiotic we are by leaving a comment below!