Don’t speak. Point!

The other day at a conference in California Ethan Zuckerman was asked whether editors (as in newspaper and television editors) were still relevant in these days of participative journalism. He offered the best answer I've heard so far on that question: "Don''t speak. Point!" By which he meant: the days of journalists and editors "speaking on behalf of people" or "speaking to people" are over. "Point to people and get out of the way", he said. Lucy Hooberman from MentoringWorldwide, who took notes on the panel, translated that into: the future is about journalists and editors as facilitators, as the guy at the center of the crossing directing traffic (I'm quite sure that her point of view is informed by her work in media innovation at the BBC).

I couldn't agree more with both Lucy and Ethan. That's something I've been arguing for almost ten years now, starting with an essay I wrote in November 1997 in the peer-reviewed online journal FirstMonday:

Facts and information can circulate without interference and without the journalist acting as a filter. He will have to give up part of the power he used to have - based on his competence as well as on his position. The role of the journalist is changing into a more central figure, a mediator. He directs traffic, explores, becomes a facilitator of discussions. His new power will depend on his ability to animate a group of people, to develop methods and means to enliven the community, to organize information-gathering and -use with the participation of the members of the community.

Comments

[vac]

Hi Bruno!

Does that mean you do not buy the "hive mind" hype?

another analogy for your "information traffic controller":

Game master in a role-playing game

Your blog is excellent but unfortunately a bit "under-commented". Keep it up, please!

[BG]

Vac, your suggested analogy is spot-on: the guild masters in World of Warcraft for example. I've written a couple of things on the social functioning of multiplayer games in the past:
http://giussani.typepad.com/loip/2006/02/dungeons_dragon.html
As for the "hive mind" point, I'm not sure that I understand correctly what you mean.
Thanks for the kind words. Bruno

[Andrea C.]

I completely agree with your “1997- prophecy”, Bruno. I also see the journalist as a mediator, who provides background informations on issues and encourages discussions and debates. Your blog is a good example, as well as Beppe Severgnini’s forum (www.corriere.it/italians). Keep on posting!! :-)

[frosty]

Hmm, interesting idea. However, there's one thing editors do -- sort of editorial gruntwork -- that's badly, badly needed in blogville: correcting spelling, grammar and ocassionally style.

One problem is that while most people can't be trusted to edit themselves competently, you also can't effectively put a filtering layer on top of such a diffuse medium.

Of course the counter-argument is that very few people actually care about "presentation" -- there are a few Seth Godins out there, but only a very few. Most folks, "A-List" bloggers prominent among them, just don't give a damn about the details, and for the most part the audiences don't either.

Even us detail-obsessed types don't really vote with our mice. I still regularly read people who couldn't tell "its" from "it's" at gunpoint.

The other thing your post has me wondering about is authenticity and authority. What kind of reputation system might reliably inform you about the trustworthiness of a blogger at the source?

What if it's someone who writes about C++ all the time, and then the aliens land in his back yard and suddenly he's the most central witness blogging about it? As nice as it is to think about "citizen journalists," I'm a little scared by the prospect of everyone taking that guy's word.

[BG]

Frosty, as it happens I agree with you. That's why already in that old text I wrote about the "central role" of the editors in things like "organizing the information-gathering and -use". It is my opinion that the realiability of information will become a central issue very soon.
About spellchecking and other corrections, however, I disagree. I work with editors, and while their corrections certainly bring some (much needed) clean-up, sometimes they make the story worse, or ambiguous, or wrong. Because they're not the ones out reporting. B.