That’s my intentional over-simplification of an op-ed written by Ben Elowitz, founder of several social media and e-commerce websites you’ve never heard of, writing on Paid Content (I know, getting worked up over something on Paid Content is like taking a bazooka to a goldfish in a barrel, but whaddya gonna do).

According to our man here, credentials, correctness (accuracy), objectivity and craftsmanship may have “made sense for the world of Publishing 1.0, from Gutenberg until 1995,” but in the wonderland of “Publishing 2.0,” those measures of quality are “about as useful as the cubit is in modern architecture.” (I’ll let his poor grammar and mixed metaphor stand uncorrected because I only edit other people’s stuff for money anymore.) He asserts that they have “fundamentally changed and become invalid” and are “no longer useful.”

Let’s let him explain . . .

• . . . why credential is now obsolete: “The audience doesn’t care where the content comes from as long as it meets their needs. Decisions of what content is trustworthy are made by referral endorsements from our friends and colleagues on the social networks, and by the algorithms of search that help weigh authority vs. relevance.”
• . . . why correctness is now obsolete: “The audience can supply the suspicion directly without the publisher doing so as proxy; and the audience values timeliness more than correctness.”
• . . . why objectivity is now obsolete: “The audience doesn’t want a singular objective piece on a topic; the reality is a no-brainer that people utilize the natural multiplicity online. “
• . . . why craftsmanship is now obsolete: “For the vast majority of categories, well-crafted content is consumed disposably by the audience, and investments in craftsmanship are more an indulgence in the creators’ egos than an investment in differentiation that will win audience. “

And people wonder where Fox News came from.

You know what? There will always be plenty of readers who don’t want to pay for those things, and there will always be plenty of writers who are happy to step up and provide work that has none of them. It’s amazingly easy to write quickly, inexpensively, and in great abundance when you’re not worried about giving people accurate explanations of events, or using terms accurately, or writing in a way that clarifies causes and effects, or projecting your biases and prejudices on simpatico readers.

On the other hand, there will always be readers who are willing to pay for accurate, even-handed, well-crafted writing by knowledgeable people. Right now there are plenty of writers who are getting paid their worth to do just that, and even more — all those laid-off reporters — who are hungry for the opportunity.

What concerns me is the ever-widening gulf between the two approaches, and the increasing inability of people to tell the difference between them. This is not a new problem, by any stretch, but it does have more impact now.

Elowitz falls back on the worn-out trope that editors see their role as “protecting” readers from something. Well, for over a decade I’ve worked with dozens of editors of breathtakingly varied skill, and I can say this:

He’s right.

Editors do believe that they’re put on this Earth to protect people from something.

From reading bullshit.

Long live the knowledgeable, skillful, even-handed writer. Long live the knowledgeable, skillful, even-handed editor who pays such writers their worth. Long live the reader who appreciates quality — old-fashioned quality. And let them all continue their noble work together, looking ever toward the day when together they shall inherit the Earth they have worked so hard to understand and to make understandable.

(For a much more well-written, clear, and even-handed rejoinder by a knowledgeable writer, Craig Silverman of CJR — who deliciously dubs Elowitz’ piece a “bit of contrarian linkbait” — go here. )

Categorised as: Life the Universe and Everything

Comments are disabled on this post