Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Are the Mirror changes part of bigger changes for editors?

I've just heard on the Media Show that Lloyd Embley, the quiet man who's replaced the editors of the Mirror and the Sunday Mirror and will be at the helm of the new seven-day paper, is "a good production journalist".

At which point I would be failing in my trumpet-blowing duty if I didn't point out that in my current column for In Publishing I said:
Editors used to be picked for their ability to predict what was about to be interesting to people. In the future, they'll be picked for their ability to note where the interest is and minister to it.
I was talking about magazine editors but I think the point holds good.


  1. I thought the point made was that he will understand that the job of getting the paper out needs doing from start to finish, every day - without fail.

    So he will manage the process - and the willing/unwilling staff and 'other elements' - accordingly, to make sure that this result happens.

    The statement reflects that this will be done to a 24/7 programme, rather than luxuriating in a relaxed weekly or even monthly scedule.

    Hence the appointment recognises 'the interest' is in getting the paper out, and his focus 'will minister to that end'.

    Or was the point in code, as so often, after all?

  2. My point certainly wasn't in code. I meant that the traditional editor was seen as a leader of public opinion whose occasionally daring choices might help you sell a lot of paper. The new kind of editor is someone who can build and maintain a machine that churns news. The individual items of news are less important than the ever-rolling tide of the stuff.

  3. Yes understood & you are quite right. Effective & functioning managing editors are always needed.

    In the post Leveson world quite attractive. We've seen what happens when Editors get - and act on - their own ideas.

    Although it might get a bit boring after a while, there are no prizes for missed editions.

  4. But surely what DH is referring to is the art/craft of being proactive rather than reactive - of setting the agenda. It's a sad day when we in the media can't attempt to explain something or rattle a few cages, instead being told by Google to run out endless list features on LOLcats.

    Leveson exposes things most people already knew about certain murky corners of the industry, but it's not a reason to curtail intelligent editorial adventure.