Bidding farewell to a year of unique editorial challenges.

By William Dunkerley

Few editors will have cherished memories of 2020. It's been a year that has challenged us all professionally and personally. Some publications have fared well. Others were hard hit. Still others failed.

It's been the kind of year that Arnold Schwarzenegger might bid adieu with a "hasta la vista, baby!"

Here at Editors Only we've seen a surprising number of our readers going into retirement. Others were terminated. Among those that stayed, many had to wait out a furlough. Management had to regroup at lightning speed. The decentralized work-at-home approach made an imposing debut.

Meanwhile, as we've faced these issues at the micro level, the macro information space in which we live has been pulled and squeezed by commanding pressures.

Navigating the Infodemic

In late February the word "infodemic" entered the vernacular. The term had been coined in 2003 by David Rothkopf, whose Wikipedia bio describes him as a "political scientist, journalist, CEO."

Back then Rothkopf said an infodemic affects "consumers of information ranging from officials to private citizens who have varying abilities to see the whole information picture, varying degrees of sophistication about what to do with the information they have, little opportunity to authenticate data before acting on it, and little if any training in understanding or controlling the rapidly changing information picture."

Several weeks ago BuzzFeed News proclaimed: "In 2020 Disinformation Broke the US."

According to Google Trends, the word “infodemic” generated but a blip of interest in 2003. By mid-March 2020 it was back with a vengeance. The Wall Street Journal ran the headline "Infodemic: When Unreliable Information Spreads Far and Wide."

Of course, the main buzz was about the coronavirus pandemic and the polarized political coverage thereof that began to dominate the news. Most EO readers aren't in the business of covering that pandemic. But the erosion of public trust in various media forms isn't going to do us any good in the long run. Not only that, but it could spur on the development of rulemaking that might inadvertently infringe upon our editorial missions.

Reexamining Section 230

Another macro pressure surrounds Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. We are clearly feeling the impact of this in the present. Last year eMarketer claimed that Amazon, Google, and Facebook were recipients of over two thirds of all digital ad dollars. That's pretty stiff competition for your publication. The chances that said competition is affecting or will affect your editorial budget are not remote.

But what does that have to do with "communications decency" and Section 230?

That's the law that enables internet giants like Facebook to go after money that otherwise could be available for your editorial budget.

That competitive advantage is related to our editorial responsibilities. As an editor you have to assure that what you publish isn't going to cause illegal damage to anyone. If it does, your publication could be sued. Section 230 puts Facebook and others beyond reach of that liability. That means they are free to play fast and loose with the truth. If an advertiser, commercial or political, in its own self-interest, wants to put one over on audiences, publishers with guaranteed immunity are the place to go. They're the place to make lots of digital ad buys.

They get away with it because these giant publishers are not considered publishers under the law. That's the trick. They're put in the same bucket as the telephone company. But the telephone company is just a conveyor of information, not a curator, not an editor. Another analogy that's been used is that Facebook et al. are like a newsstand or bookstore -- i.e., just a pass-through.

But the digital giants are being misclassified. They're not telephone companies or newsstands. They are indeed publishers. They curate and edit information. And they are competing with the rest of us unfairly under the protection of Section 230.

Unfortunately, this is another issue affecting us that is subject to the pressures of partisan politics. In the case of Facebook, Twitter, and others, one political side likes the way they edit. The other side doesn't. That means getting a fair arbitration of the issue will be difficult.

Imagining a New Post-Pandemic Normal

A third macro pressure is the instinctive wish for a return to normal. It's a natural reaction to all the discomfort that everyone has experienced in 2020. I know that many editors have their hopes set on an early return to normal. But that may not be the best strategy for plowing into 2021.

Some say there never will be a return to normal. The 2020 experience has made an indelible impression. It has changed us. Some editors long to reconstitute their editorial offices. Others have recognized efficiencies and other benefits that have materialized from the forced work-at-home experience.

Readership behaviors have evolved as well. Some of that has been for the good. At-home sources of information have played a more important role in 2020. Wouldn't it be great to be able to perpetuate that commitment to our publications?

Return to normal? An EHS Today headline claims, "Most Americans Expect Life to Never Return to Normal." It cites a recent Harris Poll that found that "76 percent of US adults indicated that the pandemic caused them to change their priorities. Once life returns to 'normal,' 73 percent of respondents say they will keep those same arrangements."

According to EHS Today, "the pandemic has caused 43 percent of currently-employed workers to reevaluate their current career paths. More than half, 51 percent, are seeking remote employment."

That's a lot to factor into how you handle things as 2021 unfolds.

Add your comment.