Do We Need Editors in New Media?

All we need is love. The two thoughts are related.

In the last couple of days I familiarized myself with the work of Kevin Kelly, who helped launch Wired in 1993 and authored Out of Control in 1995, and Clay Shirky whose new book Here Comes Everybody is due in stores at the end of the month.

My inquiry originated with the question in the title here - do we need editors in new media? To me the obvious answer is yes. Steve Rubel talked digital curators, online.

Yes because we need to design smart ways to save time navigating a page and a site -- as in the case of the new FastCompany.com. How do I know what is important on that site? Everything looks the same with slightly different naming. Not enough for a time-starved audience.

Yes because although we are smarter than I, the demand for some intelligent guidance and selection is worth a lot. I seek the same experience on the site that I seek in the magazine -- expert advice, guidance, thought provoking questions. Followed up by reactions and discussion.

That is why editors (and digital curators) are important.

In a recent post titled The Bottom is Not Enough, Kelly gets into much more detail about the wisdom of crowds and the need for central design. In his book, Out of Control, he delves more into the new biology of machines, social systems and the economic world. Some selected maxims:

The central act of the coming era is to connect everything to everything.

The only organization capable of unprejudiced growth, or unguided learning, is a network.

A mind cannot possibly consider anything beyond what it can measure or calculate; without a body it can only consider itself. Without the interruptions of hellos from the eye, ear, tongue, nose, and finger, the evolving mind huddles in the corner picking its navel.

We don't have a word for learning and teaching at the same time, but our schooling would improve if we did.

One can imagine the future shape of companies by stretching them until they are pure network. It will be hard at times to tell who is working for whom.

A company cannot be a learning company without also being a teaching company.

What's love got to do with it? Everything.

"We have always loved one another. We're human," said Shirky at the recent Supernova conference, "It's something we're good at. But up until recently, the radius and half-life of that affection has been quite limited. With love alone, you can get a birthday party together. Add coordinating tools, and you can write an operating system."

"In the past, we could do little things for love, but big things, big things required money. Now, we can do big things for love." Here Comes Everybody is about the power of organizing without organizing.

If print journalism falters as publishing methods are transformed through the Web, the power of collecting, editing, and publishing smart versions of the knowledge and information available is only going to be more critical moving forward.

Editing is hard. It requires a commitment to making choices. It's about what you leave out as much as it is about what you put in. With experience we gain the ability to discern what is core to the central story. In recent years we've invented sidebars, corollary tips, and captions to help tell that story more fully without detracting from the central flow. With the Internet, we've added a third dimension -- depth.

Each link is an opportunity to start a new conversation. In blog posts, we have the ability to place many thoughts from different people in one context. Our readers gather in the comments of a post in direct relation to their interest level and need. Many of the messages that come from these media circulate within the social groups that are most interested in them. Then the thoughts resurface evolved and ready to be polished and represented in a new way -- by an editor.

Are you an editor? Why? Why not? Is there a digital curator job in your future?

Comments

[Marshall Sponder]

I've been thinking - for a while - now there's so much opportunity for material, much of it duplicated (someone sees a story and comments on it - and then 10 people comment on that - and one hundred people comment on the first two integrations of the story) that little real new information gets added, and perhaps, a lot of additional information that changes the story.

On top of the first case, we have a lot more material process - as a lot more people are reporting on things they think worthwhile for the world to know about - and there's more and more platforms for them to do it on.

With all of that going on, and as our time gets more compressed and multi tasked - we need to go back to editors, aggregation of the data, either by an intelligent aggregation source (automated) and / or human editors.

There's just too much stuff out there. I have 200+ RSS feeds I read every day; Robert Scoble has 800+ - just reading all the data in my feeds and noting what's important can take a couple of hours a day if I really tried to do it at that level.

It's also interesting to hear about the idea of what it takes to create a meeting vs. what it takes to sustain it. Good Post, Valeria (they're all good post - but some of them, like this one, are easier for me to comment on).

marshall

[Don Lafferty]

The major difference between the quality of information in New Media vs. Traditional Media may be more attributable to the low point of entry for publication.

The entry point to publish in Traditional Media requires running the gauntlet of an editor who has literary, journalistic and institutional standards in place to protect and ensure the credibility of their publication. While this process doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it usually ensures the level of quality and style on which that particular editor stakes her reputation.

Drilling down to the baseline motivations behind editorial decision making is a complicated process, and most writers published in Traditional Media will tell you that a lot of forethought is required to ensure any level of success in this arena.

Even in the world of New Media, understanding these same dynamics will improve a writer’s odds of success in outlets possessing the same editorial structures as Traditional outlets.

When it comes to blogging, however, we all know there are no rules. Anybody can publish anything. You could argue that Darwinian rules of survival apply in this environment, and that quality will indeed rise to the top.

Ironically, you’ll find the highest quality work being produced by writers with strong Traditional Media backgrounds, and those writing for the New Media outlets of Traditional Media companies.

It’s in that next level of writer that the work begins to suffer, where an editor could take good work and turn it into professional work, and this is where a curator could make a difference, but only if that curator has the right to decline work, and then you’re right back into a Traditional Media structure.

So it boils down to individuals taking enough pride in their work, and having enough respect for their readership, to PAY an editor to scrub their work, just like freelancers in Traditional Media. But where does that money come from when most writers are blogging for free?

Is there a need for a digital curator? Yes. But digital curators will not clean up the blogosphere, only readers will.

[Carlos Granier-Phelps]

We can't possibly ingest all the information out there, let alone process it, rank it and categorize it. Which is why some sort of editor/curator, be it human or digital, will be necessary.

In a broad sense, Google is a curator, ranking the internet's content through their own relevance filter. Del.icio.us adds taxonomy to the mix. Twitter is a way to be exposed to content through people we feel are interesting enough to follow.

These are our eyes, ears, noses in the digital age. I found this post because steverubel posted about it on my Twitter stream (http://twitter.com/cgranier ). Even though I wrote about this very same issue a while ago (http://red66.com/2006/10/where-are-the-editors/ ), I don't think I would've found it otherwise.

Thanks for the interesting article.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Marshall,

Building and sustaining is a labor of love and patience. With so many more people producing and creating, it becomes more interesting to pursue an original path. There are choices to be made, too. Do I have something terribly interesting and new to say about an issue everyone is focusing on? Would I be better off serving my readers and conversation partners with another topic?

I clean up my RSS feeds once every six weeks. Those who stay are those who engage - with compelling content, their readers, and the community. I do read the people and publications I recommend -- 120 at last count : )

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Don -- I've been a passionate proponent of knowing the basics well and covering your basis in marketing, communications, human relations in general. All of that takes time, I realize. And we live in an instant gratification age, or we would like to believe we do. In reality, the best work, the deepest insights, the warmest connections turn out to be those where time was invested.

I like to get to know my readers. Yet I appreciate that not everyone wants to get to know me. Nothing new under the sun here, just human nature at work. I do find that the best conversations are those built over time - here at my blog, on other people's blogs, and often off the page.

@Carlos -- Yes, it is quite difficult these days to claim originality on topics, although we can all claim it in the way in which we see the world - we see it as we are. You know how to leave links with spaces so they can be active. Thank you!

My take is that it is much simpler than relying on search agents. I still feel that personal involvement, getting to know the person behind the writing, has a large role in deciding what to read. As well, we gravitate towards what we need at the time. I like to do both -- getting to know the person so I can take in all the pieces and focusing on what I need at the time. It may mean that in one month, I will refer back to something that Steve (for example) wrote several weeks earlier. If that makes sense. Relationships to me trump transactions every time.

[Carlos Granier-Phelps]

@Valeria,

I really enjoyed the article. I agree with you on not relying on search agents; it's something I hadn't thought of. Now that I think about it I notice that every time I setup a search agent, I end up not really using it as much as I thought I would - specially if it returns too many results. I usually end up reading people I know or have found interesting at some point... it's like having a rotating magazine library: every once in a while a new publication comes in that you like enough to keep, while others fall out of your radar.

In the end, I think a good network beats any search agent (though this could just be a reflection of the current state of search agent technology).

As for the spaces in the links, ;-) let's just say I've been around the net long enough to try the Preview button (and copying my message to the clipboard) before submitting for publication.

[Karen Hegmann]

Valeria

You've raised an interesting topic with some very valid examples.

Do we need editors in New Media? Yes and no. If the objective of a website is to provide news coverage in a traditional sense, then the information on that site should be edited for facts or information that could be misrepresented. The tool may be new, but the principles underlying reporting style shouldn't vary with new media.

In the case of blogs then, no, an editor shouldn't be a requirement. To me, the whole purpose behind blogging is self-expression and freedom of speech - and what I write and how I write it is my business. If however, my views are decidedly controversial and I choose to express my opinions on someone else's blog, then that person has the right to edit if my views might offend their readers.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Carlos -- one day artificial intelligent agents will be true discovery channels with the promise held by the semantic Web. For now, I think it wise to mix trusted sources with accidental or serendipitous finds. In my view structure and randomness work well together. good to know you are linked with Technosailor.

@Karen -- I play both sides/roles on my blog. I try to write ahead of time so I can edit for clarity and length. Yes, I'm told I can be challenging on both counts. Usually my second pass is better than the first draft - most times the organization benefits. I think we also act as editors when we choose to publish some things vs. others. Thoughts?

[Karen Hegmann]

Valeria

You're right when you say that bloggers act as editors by choosing what to publish. Some bloggers use blogs as an easy way to publish their "rants." It probably makes them feel good doing it, but as a reader I find that this approach can be tiresome sometimes.

I believe in freedom of expression but, as always, this can be abused sometimes.

[Valeria Maltoni]

As blogs mature, there may be more editing going on.

[Tim Brunelle]

Valeria,

Of course we need editors in new media. I reacted to Seth's post on Editors with (I believe Stephen King's) quote, "Half of writing is editing." But that merely applies to the words at hand.

Broadly speaking, we need editors acting as Guides or Tastemakers to help point us towards that content which satisfies us best.

Tim

[Laurel Hart]

As the quantity and variety of content has grown, it's becoming harder and harder to sift through the mountain to find the gems. I absolutely think that businesses - and readers in general - will increasingly look for editors or digital curators to help find those relevant nuggets in the areas that matter to them. For real, live events, I've seen these kind of "editors" grow in popularity in New York (and elsewhere) in the last 5 years or so, and start to build successful businesses out of it - just look at Daily Candy, Flavorpill, etc. The information equivalent can't be far behind.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Tim -- Interesting concept of tastemakers. I'll be thinking about it and observing how it works. Writing/editing with the audience in mind is a true skill.

@Laurel -- it would be ideal to be able to prepare for every meeting, event, and business opportunity with research, strategy and goals. That would allow us to focus on what we're trying to accomplish a little more. Instead, given constrains on time and effort we are increasingly turning to reliable guides. That to me is another meaning of permission marketing.

[Lynne d Johnson]

Hello Valeria, because your questions is about editors in New Media and you've mentioned the newly upgraded FastCompany.com, I wanted to comment on the topic. FastCompany.com does have editors/digital curators. We have nine home pages -- one a main home page, and eight others that are category channels: Innovation, Technology, Management, Leadership, Careers, Design, Social Responsibility, Work/Life. Each one of those pages are updated every day (and in some cases many times a day) by editorial selection. Though the wisdom of the crowd is at play all over the site, much of what rises to those nine pages is carefully chosen by editorial review. This also includes the Fast Talk (provocative topical questions raised by editors or suggested by members) that you see throughout the site. And the big idea, that members respond to, is also written by editors (with occasional member suggestion).

The basis of all of those pages though are: 2 Fast Company features (either from the magazine or web), staff blogs, expert blogs, 2 fast talk comments, and one article comment. This same set up appears on all 9 of our home pages and each slot of content is designated by a header/label. So if you're only interested in reading features you can click on features, if you're only interested in reading expert blogs, you can click on expert blogs, and so on. There are numerous means of navigating the site -- by channels, by tags, by content types, by advanced search.

But to answer your question, yes I think editors are needed. I'm all for the wisdom of crowds and smart mobs, but as you suggest we need a guide to get through the clutter (to make sense of the noise). On the other hand though, I use Twitter a great deal, and in that case it's a lot about self editing. You use keywords and people to guide you to the information that you want to read. I believe that's they way a lot of search is beginning to work and a lot of websites.

[Valeria Maltoni]

I appreciate the detailed response, Lynne. I have found the site overwhelming to date and hard to look at in my spare time, which is very little these days. That was also the reason why I left Facebook. Took much going on and not enough time to make sense of it on someone else's layout.

I am now hoping that LinkedIn doesn't merge individual profiles with the endless updates going on there or I will stop using that, too. Navigability and usability - in ease of use - help me a lot in deciding what is important. I suspect many of us are visual creatures. That's why blogs are so friendly in that respect - one or a couple content owners, the sidebar space and one main post.

The two searches I ran so far on the site did not yield what I was looking for. Google did, outside the site.

Editors are fast becoming some of my favorite people. In more than a couple of occasions per day instead of running a general search on a topic I look for what Scoble said, or what Godin wrote, etc. No time to do otherwise and I've come to trust those brands.

There are editors on Twitter, too. Same principle. What some people share and write tends to be more interesting to the type of content and topics I broach. Although I am noticing that a lot of commercial entities have started adding folks on Twitter and spamming them. If that takes over, goodbye Twitter for me in the same way I abandoned my old email account. I want less junk, not more.

[Yvonne DiVita]

I'm new here. Discovered you via good ole Steve Rubel. This is fascinating and thought provoking. I plan on sharing...

I just wonder - how much should we be editing? Is a conversation that has become abusive and heated, on a blog, something that should be left alone, or edited by a higher power (who is the higher power - the owner of the blog?) or should it be left alone to flow as a conversation would... even if there is name-calling and content very close to libel (again, who decides that?)