Editing is not becoming a commodity
Linda sent me a link to Sara Perez’ post “Content is becoming a Commodity” on ReadWriteWeb which focuses on the problem that modern bloggers have hanging on to their words and other content which can be vacuumed up by any number of more-or-less legitimate enterprises that try to monetize it while rarely giving credit (or, especially, payment) where due.
Ms. Perez quotes blogger Steve Hodson, who decries the devaluation of his ‘brand’ in a landscape where anyone can snatch his words and repurpose them. This set me to thinking (always a dangerous thing), and now to setting down my thoughts about a couple of issues that I think lurk behind Ms. Perez’ and Mr. Hodson’s thoughts.
“Information wants to be free.” The problem Mr. Hodson elucidates has been with us since before Gutenberg. Content isn’t becoming a commodity, it has been a commodity for some hundreds of years now. The problem predates print publishing - wandering minstrels used to wrangle over misappropriated material - it predates the Internet and will likely vex media yet to be invented.
Once you publish in any medium, you’re vulnerable to everything from people appropriating snippets without attribution to rampant plagiarism and outright piracy. Easier publishing means easier stealing: digital media is merely particularly easy to rip off. If writers and editors had the RIAA/MPAA affiliates’ billions, our lobby would already have pushed through legislation making cut-and-paste a capital offense.
The only response, in my humble opinion, is to just to get over it: ‘losing’ your content is both a good and a bad thing, and, anyway, it’s inevitable. On the one hand, shifty characters with vast automated link farms, each displaying Google ads, will glean some pennies from your (and my) content, and possibly a lot more than that from all of our content aggregated. On the other hand, wider dissemination may introduce you to new readers who will seek you out. Even when your name is stripped from your words, Google allows the enterprising would-be reader to find you, if your words are compelling and unique.
In an ocean of information, editing is more valuable than content. As supply outstrips demand, the price of a given commodity goes to zero. No one has the time to sift even a fraction of a day’s new content on the web. Net content is actually worth less than zero, in the sense that there is so much, the sheer bulk obscures the content that readers seek - how often does Google return ‘Results 1-10 of about 1,293,913′ pages that match your request?
Almost 20 years ago, Will Hearst told me, in the newsroom of his San Francisco Examiner, that editing would become steadily more valuable as the ‘cheapest printing press in history’ (Will’s Words) spawned an explosion in text, photos, videos and anything else that can be digitized.
In a sense, the blogging phenomenon is proof of that: many blogs consist largely of quotes from, and pointers to, content that the blogger finds interesting or informative. The blogger is really an Internet editor-at-large, presenting her choice of compelling content, sieved from vast oceans of media.
The best bloggers are, in my opinion, up a notch: they edit more selectively and often write concise, insightful commentary on the content they point to. Again, the editor function is a key part of what they do (not that some bloggers aren’t originals, known mainly for their exposition).
The job of editor is different on the web. It is not unusual that when a paradigm shifts, even those things which find a place in the new world are changed in some profound way. Most editing ‘jobs’ on the Internet are not what they were in old-line newsrooms or at lofty literary magazines, not that these aren’t worthy metiers: I would give much for a site where good editors would correct, critique, encourage and otherwise develop me as a writer. And some news operations on the web essentially duplicate centuries-old editorial work flows, especially those with roots in old-line media (the online versions of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal come to mind.)
But most web editors are freelancers: true amateurs more often working for love, rather than money. These editors have nevertheless become influential: their efforts increasingly help shape public opinion, taste in music, personal style, purchase decisions and even the outcomes of national elections. Publicists and marketers pitch bloggers on personalities and products, in the hope of gaining a mention on an influential blog, much as they pitch ‘legit’ media like newspapers and magazines.
So content is indeed, and always has been, a commodity. As information of all kinds floods the networked planet, keen, insightful editing, will become more valuable.