Editor's Changing Roles in Today's Mediascape
As technology has changed rapidly throughout the past several decades, the world has become much more 'connected' (a term often used in reference to the fact that the public has access to so much information via the internet, information that we are able to comment and converse over with people we haven't even met). For the consumer, this seems mostly positive. For example, I could see a political post on Twitter, weigh in on it with my opinion, and see the opinions of others who come from completely different walks of life than me. It feels as though the ease of accessing information and commenting on it has changed our culture immensely, and I think that has made the job of the editor significantly harder for several reasons.
First off, it's the job of both the writer and the editor to know their audience, but editors are the ones who stand between the writer's piece and the public. They are the last people to survey a project before the public sees it, and therefore take much of the responsibility for whether or not that project is successful once the public's reception of it becomes known. Now that we have access to people's online profiles (not to mention the information that companies gather about their consumers), there are a lot of different audiences to get to know, which means there should be more specific details catering to particular audiences. For example, in the 1950's, if there was an article in a women's magazine on recipes to try making for dinner, the writer and editor would probably only worry about whether or not the article made sense for married, stay at home mothers. Now that we have more information on the lifestyles and interests of our diverse population today, the editor of that women's magazine article would have a lot more details to consider. Does their audience consist or married or single women? Do they have kids or not? Do they work or stay home? What does their reader's life look like? The writer and editor would have to take all this and more into account, and then the editor would have to decide if the article made sense.
In addition to this, because we have access to so much information, editors must double and triple check to make sure what they put out is correct or accurate, as it's gotten much easier to call out mistakes. For example, news sources are often called out for reporting biased or incorrect information, often by people who do research elsewhere and state their criticisms publicly. This can cause them to lose trust with the public and develop a negative reputation, which can be devastating for the writers and editors in the long run.
Lastly, I believe editors are presented with new challenges because of the lengths they go to to be socially aware and avoid offending people. Surely writers and editors have always wanted to be considerate and have the approval of their audience. However, in the past, if a writer made an insensitive comment, whether intended or not, it would not likely be widely criticized because people would not have the ability to publicly comment about it on a website or their social media pages. Today people are able to catch details that may be considered offensive or insensitive and point them out for the world to see. This isn't an entirely bad system. I'll admit that if critical comments are constructive and civil, we can learn from them and avoid future mistakes in our interactions with each other (I'll be the first to admit, I've seen people call each other out online for things I never would have realized could be hurtful, and appreciate the fact that it allowed me to put myself in someone else's shoes). However, being called out for offensive or poorly thought out content in public can be a nightmare for a writer or editor, so it's very important for an editor to try and catch these details before anything is published.
Overall I think this more connected world has a lot of benefits not only for readers and consumers, but also for editors. But there are also many more factors for editors to take into consideration, and this of course leads to more room for mistakes.
First off, it's the job of both the writer and the editor to know their audience, but editors are the ones who stand between the writer's piece and the public. They are the last people to survey a project before the public sees it, and therefore take much of the responsibility for whether or not that project is successful once the public's reception of it becomes known. Now that we have access to people's online profiles (not to mention the information that companies gather about their consumers), there are a lot of different audiences to get to know, which means there should be more specific details catering to particular audiences. For example, in the 1950's, if there was an article in a women's magazine on recipes to try making for dinner, the writer and editor would probably only worry about whether or not the article made sense for married, stay at home mothers. Now that we have more information on the lifestyles and interests of our diverse population today, the editor of that women's magazine article would have a lot more details to consider. Does their audience consist or married or single women? Do they have kids or not? Do they work or stay home? What does their reader's life look like? The writer and editor would have to take all this and more into account, and then the editor would have to decide if the article made sense.
In addition to this, because we have access to so much information, editors must double and triple check to make sure what they put out is correct or accurate, as it's gotten much easier to call out mistakes. For example, news sources are often called out for reporting biased or incorrect information, often by people who do research elsewhere and state their criticisms publicly. This can cause them to lose trust with the public and develop a negative reputation, which can be devastating for the writers and editors in the long run.
Lastly, I believe editors are presented with new challenges because of the lengths they go to to be socially aware and avoid offending people. Surely writers and editors have always wanted to be considerate and have the approval of their audience. However, in the past, if a writer made an insensitive comment, whether intended or not, it would not likely be widely criticized because people would not have the ability to publicly comment about it on a website or their social media pages. Today people are able to catch details that may be considered offensive or insensitive and point them out for the world to see. This isn't an entirely bad system. I'll admit that if critical comments are constructive and civil, we can learn from them and avoid future mistakes in our interactions with each other (I'll be the first to admit, I've seen people call each other out online for things I never would have realized could be hurtful, and appreciate the fact that it allowed me to put myself in someone else's shoes). However, being called out for offensive or poorly thought out content in public can be a nightmare for a writer or editor, so it's very important for an editor to try and catch these details before anything is published.
Overall I think this more connected world has a lot of benefits not only for readers and consumers, but also for editors. But there are also many more factors for editors to take into consideration, and this of course leads to more room for mistakes.
The idea that we can every KNOW our audience has always been complexly troubling. Can we? Even when we "best guess" it, we're bound to miss some aspects of language curation that will help our messages achieve our goals.
ReplyDeleteI agree that connectedness is helping. But is it also hurting us as a people? In what ways? And, if so, how can technical editors do their part toward the ethical good?
Finally, consider popping your posts with images (to create an immediate tone and draw readerly interest), hyperlinks (for definitions and examples), and maybe consider embedding videos!