If you follow media news at all closely, you’ve read about the Los Angeles Times editorial page’s abortive experiment with creating wikitorials. I knew it was doomed from the start, as did everyone who knows anything about how new media work, and I’d planned to post something about it at some point. Now Jeff Jarvis has done it for me.
Here’s the gist:
Here is the Times’ worst mistake and its most predictable: They think everything is about them. I’ve sat in meetings with newspaper editors who earnestly think that the best use of internet interactivity is to let the people talk about what they have written, to discuss them, to keep them in the spotlight they built for themselves. There is no bigger institutional ego than a newspaper’s. Presidents and popes get humbled more often than editors. Well, at least they used to.
No, guys, the best use of a wiki would have been to have the public create wikis to share their knowledge and viewpoints with you. I don’t know what the big issues are in LA, but here in New York, it might work better just to open the gates to watch people create pro and con wikis on the Olympics and a new Manhattan stadium and 10 ways to improve the schools….
But even that is an exhibition of media ego. For the truth is, if people wanted to do that, they could go to any number of places and do it on their own. They don’t need newspapers to give them technology. And they certainly do not need newspapers to tell them what to talk about.
If newspapers would just listen–and use this technology to do that–they’d find that the people don’t want to talk about what the editors talk about. And they certainly don’t want to talk about the editors.
Let’s take it up a notch:
What this really points toward is the death of the editorial page. Why the hell do we need editorials anymore? In their day, they were the voice–the bully pulpit, as Rupert Murdoch says–of one person: the publisher, the guy who had the ultimate conch, the printing press. We, the people, never said we gave a damn what he thought, but we had no choice but to listen. And so over the years, he convinced himself that we cared. What if we don’t?
The truth is that an editorial is just another blog post written by one person witih one viewpoint. Here’s a case where you can’t argue that it makes a difference having a journalism degree and a newsroom. Editorialists and columnists get to read the same stuff we do and they put on their pants and opinions just the way we do. So why should they have rights to the mountaintop? Who died and made them Moses? Let the people speak….
I couldn’t agree more, nor could I have put it better–and I spent several years writing editorials for a major metropolitan newspaper, the New York Daily News. It was a great job and I’m glad I did it, but those days are soooo over.
If you haven’t looked at my Commentary essay on artblogging, let me point you to this paragraph:
When newspapers do become obsolete–which will happen sooner rather than later–it will be because their functions have been taken over by a variety of web-based media that can do them better. (Blogs, for example, are already superseding op-ed pages.) A few existing papers will rise to the challenge and transform themselves into online publications, reconceived in such a way as to take advantage of the unique properties of the web. Most, however, will not, since established institutions rarely if ever transform themselves, least of all in response to external threats to their survival. Instead, they are replaced by new institutions that spring up in response to those same threats, seeing them as opportunities for long-overdue change.
The Times just made my point for me–unintentionally.