If you are a news site doing SEO, they you are pretty much axing your own leg. Here is why:
If you are optimising your content for what people are searching for, then it means that you continuously deliver your news late, do not have anything original to say, have little or no editorial direction, add nothing of value, and are essentially hitching a ride on other people's work.
Avi Loeb has some outrageous ideas, is one of the many scientists on substack, but what is great about his content is that whatever he bashes out makes global headlines. He does not need to do SEO, because when he writes, he creates the content that people look for. He actually specialises in black holes, cosmology and the early universe, and his ramblings on aliens are considered pseudoscience, that most serious scientists, including astrobiologists, do not engage with. Still, his content is SEO gold. If you are a news site, you should be writing your own gold.
So, SEO means you are late and unoriginal. It is not a good approach to growing an audience. If you are catering to readers who want to read about increasing federalism in India's space sector on the same site as curd rice recipes, either the people who read about space or about curd rice are going to go away. (Not me, Im right in the chut of this venn diagram). It is dangerous, even suicidal for a news organisation to sacrifice quality and editorial oversight to favour high volume of SEO articles.
Now, if your entire editorial policy is dependent on SEO, then you are basically publishing the same shit as everyone else, removing entirely the scope for discovery and providing unique content for your readers. There are some things that people just will not search for, such as the growing need for a second kitchen, at least a larder with automatic deliveries and inventory tracking, or the amazing story of science catching up and proving the mother right, who believed for decades that her unresponsive son with severe brain damage was still hanging in there, or the amazing efforts by a team of scientists who used microgliders to teach the endangered Northern Bald Ibis to migrate. In-print, the New Yorker aptly titled this story as 'Helicopter Parents'. Your publication will never write stories such as these if it relies on SEO, and you are wasting away the careers of all the journalists who work for you by depending on SEO. Searching for 'LPG' on Google and tabbing to News will not show you how the LPG cylinder shortage is causing crematoriums in Keralam to shut down.
There are also concepts and ideas that are too complex for anyone to look up. Even if you look up Laplace’s principle of ‘the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness’, Google and other search engines are unlikely to surface current, relevant pieces wrangling with the subject such as 'Why Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?' by Corey S Powell, or my own exploration and explanation of the subject that I published a few months before that one. These concepts are too complex for anyone to search on Google. If you are serious about News, you cannot be serious about SEO.
The algorithms that drive engagement on social media heavily favour clickbait, sensationalism, and low-quality content. You cannot allow dumbfucks in senior positions to drag the quality of journalism down some hell-hole, then keep digging. Most Indian news sites shy away from using the accurate terms and technical jargon, and do not even end up communicating what happened. The trans-lunar injection manoeuvre of Chandrayaan 3 and the trans-Lagrangian-point-1-injection manoeuvre of Aditya L1 were just covered as 'important' or 'crucial' manoeuvres, with the body text often omitting what the spacecraft even did. You are so focused on SEO, that you do not even convey the news!
Now even the best experts in SEO, have little to no understanding of the value of editorial content. Entire websites are tuned towards in-bound links from Google searches, with the interfaces burying older stories with no way to access them from the home pages. This devalues years of work by journalists, with many platforms opting to purge previous stories when new SEO policies are formulated. Such news sites do not care about the talent, or the previous work put in. They are ruthless, careless and damaging to the industry. Any journalist who has worked for more than 10 years in India knows that a portion of their work... in fact years of work, has been destroyed. This is why you are better off working in print media.
If a news desk starts with Google trends and specialised keyword tools instead of authentic sources and original reporting, you are basically killing the entire industry by crowding out real journalism with copy-pasted, paraphrased, and AI-generated crap. If your news organisation relies on SEO for traffic, then it is setting up the property for failure, and committing a crime against the company they work for.
Remember, Google is not your friend, it has killed your entire industry, and is your biggest enemy! The AI generated overviews keeps people on Google. If you set up processes and systems to optimise SEO, Google will change the rules, and fuck you in the ass. You cannot win, even if you play by the rules, that keep changing, are arcane, and necessarily opaque to prevent exploitation.
So if you are a news site and the management is more focused on SEO than editorial, then get the fuck out! In India, the news sites that prioritise editorial over SEO, and publish original, authentic stories without stuffing their site with crap are The Print, The Wire, Scroll, The Caravan, Newslaundry, News Minute, and The Ken. The tier-2 ones that still maintain some editorial while following the rules of SEO are The Hindu and Indian Express.