The Bloggomist: Acorn & Oak Tree
Culture Opinion

As every tech company seems to be releasing tablet e-readers, nearly every publishing giant cuts down on both their staffs and titles, and even seasoned media vets move online, I suppose it should be pretty apparent that the newer, democratically conceived voices undercutting established ones are, indeed, undeniably potent.

In a New York Times Op-Ed piece last July entitled Bright Lights, Big Internet, Bill Wasik convincingly supports his thesis of the internet as the new New York. Wasik nearly scoffs, though wistfully, at the creative twenty-somethings emptying out onto Manhattan streets in search of a big break. “Meanwhile,” he writes “another destination beckons, a place that courses with all the raw ambition and creative energy that the hard times have drained from New York.” Online, he claims, is where the new big breaks lie; and to be there doesn’t require worrying about things like the cost of urban living.

Suddenly the advantage of Being There is deflated and further, the post-youth anxiety of impressing your betters and ‘making it’ is moot. As Wasik recollects, “In the old model, young creatives dreamed of entertaining the millions, but in practice they could do so only be first pleasing a small group of gatekeepers: established figures who controlled access to the audience…” Now, it seems, the editorial assistants (or gallery-sitters, or artists’ apprentices, or production assistants) can enact what they’ve always already known for decades: that they can do the job just as well as, and sometimes better than, their superiors.

potential apple tablet rendering courtesy thenextweb.com

And as it turns out, they are.  Not necessarily news — certainly not to an Evil Monito audience — are the dozens of online success stories trumpting out daily. Many are savvy enough to make their blog or website a fulltime gig, and some have decoded the ever-elusive puzzle of personal branding well enough to garner some kind of fame. Fifteen minutes? Maybe. But fame nonetheless.

Again, the Times catches wind and in a recent piece Alice Pfeiffer runs through a veritable laundry list of online fashion blogs and magazines who are already successful online and are now gaining respect from established print institutions. But that, ultimately, seems to be the problem with the creative exodus (which was the problem all along): validation. Sure, these online outlets are successful in and amongst themselves, but really Making It, having that moment, as Wasik puts it, where one finds oneself on the opposite side of the glass from one’s noseprint, still seems to require the well-wishes of an authority.

photos courtesy theselby.com

That requisite validation paired with our relentless cultural obsession with print media and its production seems to belie a general reluctance to fully commit to online. In entertainment, we see success after success on projects related to magazine work (especially fashion): The Devil Wears Prada and How to Lose Friends and Influence People both on page and screen, Ugly Betty and The Hills on television, and most recently, The September Issue.

So while the debate over How We Get Our News has more or less been settled (sorry, newspapers), the question of How We Get Our Editorial Content Selected For Us By A Panel Of Largely Faceless But Nonetheless Trustworthy Editors remains a somewhat saltier and more complicated conversation. One has to wonder, as the debate swirls and titles close with each passing quarter, which is it? Has the internet won? Is the future of content an endless RSS stream of pleasing images and text-snippets? Or, are authoritative voices, Editors, still relevant or, dare I say, necessary?

***
To see more from Zinzi Edmundson, visit: http://evilmonito.com/author/zinzi/

Published on 19 January 2010 | |