In a world without editors, readers thrive
Thursday, July 23, 2009
News meetings suck.
Not because they are long, boring and often don't have enough snacks (actually that may be the problem), but because they are a group of journalists sitting in a room trying to decide what news they think readers will want to read. Editors and reporters have a good eye for news and are trained to know what makes a good story, but the problem with the system is that there really is no accurate way to gauge what stories thousands or millions of readers will care about. Sure there are site analytics which gauge the popularity of individual online news articles, but as any editor can tell you these stories often skew to the offbeat stories and celebrity news.
That's where sites like Windy Citizen and NYC.is come in. The sites aggregate local news for Chicago and New York, respectively, and follow a Digg-like formula where users submit the stories they find interesting and others vote the stories up or down. Both sites play to the wisdom of the crowd: local readers know what's important to them and those that are unsure of what they want to read can rely on their peers for suggestions.
Windy Citizen (left), NYC.is
Yes Windy Citizen and NYC.is mostly depend on mainstream news sources to fuel their sites, but the key difference is readers don't have to rely on mainstream news sites — or a handful of journalists — to tell them what they should be reading.
Such sites are like perpetual news meetings where people around the world communicate and identify the stories they are interested in. Online news headlines often appear separate from the actual news site, meaning many readers will have read the story without seeing the news site it came from or the landing pages that advocated its existence.
Some traditional journalists will argue that we need editors to make the key news decisions, but do we really? It is understandable why editors are needed in print and broadcast journalism to select stories to be printed or aired, but in the digital age where readers flock to social networks and, to a lesser extent, RSS readers to get the news they care about, the power of the news editor is diminished.
While sites like Windy Citizen and NYC.is should be praised for letting readers determine what is newsworthy, such modern approaches to the curation of news won't be adopted overnight... meaning the news editor position is safe for now. However, journalists should get ready for people-powered journalism where the reader is best served by serving themselves.
Also on 10,000 Words:
• 6 Sites that are changing the way you follow the news
• Beyond Twitterfeed: Innovative uses of Twitter in the newsroom
• 5 Interactive maps that connect communities
• How the internet is changing how natural disasters are covered
• Why aren't all journalists "citizen" journalists?
Not because they are long, boring and often don't have enough snacks (actually that may be the problem), but because they are a group of journalists sitting in a room trying to decide what news they think readers will want to read. Editors and reporters have a good eye for news and are trained to know what makes a good story, but the problem with the system is that there really is no accurate way to gauge what stories thousands or millions of readers will care about. Sure there are site analytics which gauge the popularity of individual online news articles, but as any editor can tell you these stories often skew to the offbeat stories and celebrity news.
That's where sites like Windy Citizen and NYC.is come in. The sites aggregate local news for Chicago and New York, respectively, and follow a Digg-like formula where users submit the stories they find interesting and others vote the stories up or down. Both sites play to the wisdom of the crowd: local readers know what's important to them and those that are unsure of what they want to read can rely on their peers for suggestions.
Windy Citizen (left), NYC.is
Yes Windy Citizen and NYC.is mostly depend on mainstream news sources to fuel their sites, but the key difference is readers don't have to rely on mainstream news sites — or a handful of journalists — to tell them what they should be reading.
Such sites are like perpetual news meetings where people around the world communicate and identify the stories they are interested in. Online news headlines often appear separate from the actual news site, meaning many readers will have read the story without seeing the news site it came from or the landing pages that advocated its existence.
Some traditional journalists will argue that we need editors to make the key news decisions, but do we really? It is understandable why editors are needed in print and broadcast journalism to select stories to be printed or aired, but in the digital age where readers flock to social networks and, to a lesser extent, RSS readers to get the news they care about, the power of the news editor is diminished.
While sites like Windy Citizen and NYC.is should be praised for letting readers determine what is newsworthy, such modern approaches to the curation of news won't be adopted overnight... meaning the news editor position is safe for now. However, journalists should get ready for people-powered journalism where the reader is best served by serving themselves.
Also on 10,000 Words:
• 6 Sites that are changing the way you follow the news
• Beyond Twitterfeed: Innovative uses of Twitter in the newsroom
• 5 Interactive maps that connect communities
• How the internet is changing how natural disasters are covered
• Why aren't all journalists "citizen" journalists?
Labels: citizen journalism, news on the news
6 Comments
Mike Riggs Says:
Good editors do more than assign stories, they also help writers/reporters/OPs/bloggers/videographers craft good stories.
In essence, good editors are master storytellers, helping others communicate their observations in the most engaging way possible.
Good editors will be obsolete when audiences no longer care about delivery--and I seriously doubt that we'll jettison our specie-specific desire for a yarn well-told anytime soon.
In essence, good editors are master storytellers, helping others communicate their observations in the most engaging way possible.
Good editors will be obsolete when audiences no longer care about delivery--and I seriously doubt that we'll jettison our specie-specific desire for a yarn well-told anytime soon.
Susannah Vila Says:
That's true: regardless of the way that stories are distributed and received, we'll always need good editors.
Benjamin Lukoff Says:
In a world without traditional editors, readers may thrive, but in a world without any editors at all, you're left with a mess. Just one example: do you know why Wikipedia has become so popular? Not because it's open to everyone to edit, although that's part of it. No, it's because it has an army of volunteer editors who help keep it mostly in line. Remove the editors from Wikipedia and it becomes useless. The Internet without editors is only so much noise.
Drew Says:
Good editors are not all about deciding what is newsworthy or not. Like Mike Riggs says here, a lot of it is about helping reporters produce good stories.
I understand the need to aggregate news you as the reader are interested in, I do it myself with TechFuga and others and it is an important piece of my daily news cycle. However, somebody has to write those stories. And while blogging is a fantastic medium to share insights and stories et. al., it largely boils down to that...personal insight--usually with little consideration for fact checking, absence of bias or other basic storytelling pains reporters and editors go to everyday in print media. And they don't work for free. If print dies, journalists will without doubt spring up in a new model with a new focus, but that writing and that dedication to the craft will remain. That's what editors are all about.
I understand the need to aggregate news you as the reader are interested in, I do it myself with TechFuga and others and it is an important piece of my daily news cycle. However, somebody has to write those stories. And while blogging is a fantastic medium to share insights and stories et. al., it largely boils down to that...personal insight--usually with little consideration for fact checking, absence of bias or other basic storytelling pains reporters and editors go to everyday in print media. And they don't work for free. If print dies, journalists will without doubt spring up in a new model with a new focus, but that writing and that dedication to the craft will remain. That's what editors are all about.
NorCal Cazadora Says:
Wow, I'm not with you on this one. I see the effects of the demise of editing all over the web these days, and it's not pretty. Some of that is the absence of copy editing, but the line editor who helps shape and polish a story is also important.
Assuming that the editor is the reason a story does or doesn't get read presumes that somehow reporters and their choices aren't colored by the same biases. I can't tell you how many times in my 19 years in the biz - both as an editor and as a reporter - that it was the editor's prodding or suggestion that brought a great story to light.
What I do agree is that the freedom of the net and viral networking can really help elevate a story that might otherwise get lost because of a series of editorial decisions that relegates it to back pages in print, and therefore lower status online as well.
Assuming that the editor is the reason a story does or doesn't get read presumes that somehow reporters and their choices aren't colored by the same biases. I can't tell you how many times in my 19 years in the biz - both as an editor and as a reporter - that it was the editor's prodding or suggestion that brought a great story to light.
What I do agree is that the freedom of the net and viral networking can really help elevate a story that might otherwise get lost because of a series of editorial decisions that relegates it to back pages in print, and therefore lower status online as well.
However, I would like to briefly point out two potential downsides, (one more likely than the other) to relying on a model like this:
1. Unpopular things get buried, leaving the visibility of news stories vulnerable to the "tyranny of the majority."
2. Online systems can be gamed, especially ones with weak security. An example is 4chan's manipulation of a Time.com "most influential person" poll. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/04/4chan-time-moot.html
July 23, 2009 11:25 AM