Kill the Gateeper

by on June 21, 2009

With the Kindle DX — Amazon’s new large-screen e-reader – the debate about the delivery of information via printed paper compared to that of digital is starting to pick up even more. Earlier, I’d wondered about reasons to prefer dead tree media that weren’t based on just aesthetics. I see that in reviewing the new Kindle, and much to their credit, Slate has avoided misty-eyed discussions of ink-stained fingers or the timeless aroma of newsprint. Instead, they’ve gone for “graphic design” (although they actually mean information architecture, but I’ll let that pass):

“But both versions of the Kindle are missing what makes print newspapers such a perfect delivery vehicle for news: graphic design. The Kindle presents news as a list—you’re given a list of sections (international, national, etc.) and, in each section, a list of headlines and a one-sentence capsule of each story. It’s your job to guess, from the list, which pieces to read. This turns out to be a terrible way to navigate the news.”

This is an interesting point. Does the presentation of information (the “design” of it) count as an advantage that newspapers have over current devices like the Kindle? If we ignore the aesthetic aspect of this and concentrate on the “navigation” they mention, the answer as far as I’m concerned is an emphatic “no”. Such design actually shows just how bad the information design of newspapers is when it comes to presenting news.

To understand why I think this, let me digress slightly. A number of years ago, I was asked to submit ideas to the BBC for innovative things they might consider in order to further the public good. I suggested a couple, and one of them was to kill off the editors at BBC News Online. Failing that, they should at least provide a part of the BBC News site where all stories could be presented without any editorial filtering or other controls. Just stack ‘em up in date order and let the people sort, filter and read them as they wanted. This idea came in response to a rather shocking revelation I had while working at the BBC on a prototype of the BBC News Online CMS. At the time, news reports were coming in from all over the world all the time. A large part of a BBC editors’ job was to pick out “important” stuff and ignore (or demote by redaction) the rest. Thus, news about the Queen always got priority over that of Jose Ramos-Horta, because nobody knew much about East Timor. This somewhat circular reasoning would be fair enough in a printed publication, but in my opinion it was almost evil in a digital one.

For the record, the BBC ignored my suggestion, although Slashdot did something very similar a year or two later with their “Firehose”.

Choosing to highlight what the editors think are the most important stories, and buring other news, is something that is both pointless and unnecessary in digital media. It’s pointless because content is becoming increasingly de-coupled from presentation. It’s unnecessary because in digital media there is no such thing as limitation of space or resources by which to publish – everything may as well be headline news.

But what about the tradition of editorial? What about benign gatekeepers who surf the information highway so you don’t have to? Who will save us from the deluge of minutiae, the distraction of the unimportant, the information we can’t be expected to understand without help? That, I suggest, isn’t worth worrying about because the Internet facilitates the right delivery for the right people by itself. This is through collaborative filtering, discussion, the expression of individual preferences, tagging, and other mechanisms yet to emerge. Of course, it might be a rather dystopian future in some ways, but then all futures are to those that examine the present in enough detail.

Comments

I couldn’t disagree more.

The reason I turn to a news site rather than a simple feed or aggregation is *because* of the value I place on their editorial expertise.

They prune, trim, filter and decide for me because they have sufficient intelligence, knowledge, experience and wisdom to do so better than I, or a machine, could.

Any time I have seen the results of a ‘collaborative’ effort to do the same it results in banal, trivialised, and deeply biased results.

The perfect example of this is to look at the ‘most emailed’ section on the BBC news website. If it was not for editors, this is how all our news would look. I pity the world in which that is the only option we have.

That’s fine as long as you trust them. But my point is that I don’t. And as for “biased” – that’s always in the eye of the beholder.

I agree that “most emailed” isn’t the way to go (if only because the ones being most emailed will continue to be so). However, it’s the same basic principle as the way the main stream media works anyway (albeit with a most intellectual gloss), so I don’t know why you’re in disagreement really.

Tell you what: watch the film of the book and see what you think.

I am confused by the premise of the author you quote.

As described, I do not see where “guessing” is involved. It sounds to me like you pick a subject of interest — as in any paper where you look toward sports or business for example — and scan down the list for articles that seem interesting. A title aand 1 sentence lead in are perfect for picking up the “information scent” of potential interest.

In fact I really like formats that provide titles and very short blurbs because they allow a greater volume of possibilities in an efficiently findable context. Also they serve as valuable reading in and of themselves. Like the WSJ synoptic box of leaders. You can scan that real quick and get a ‘feel’ for what is going on. If you want to go deep you can.

It almost sounds like the person you quote is arguing on behalf of the more passive person, who does not really care what they read. They will read whatever is presented to them with an almost passive acceptance. For this person, I can see where “spoon feeding” would make their experience go easier.

I wonder how many reading-types there are for newpapers. I wonder what perceptage is like the more passive case I just described, vs. others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>