4 - The Reimagination of Editorial Functions
How editorial is being rebuilt in public, without the old gatekeepers
Everyone Needs an Editor – But No One’s in the Chair
Everybody needs an editor. That much hasn’t changed. What has changed is where they sit. Once, they were behind closed doors - fixing structure, checking facts, and shaping stories before anyone ever saw a frame. Now, the function of the editor is being remade in public, dispersed across platforms, shared between creators and audiences, and even assisted by AI.
The big question is no longer “Who’s your editor?”
It’s “What’s your editorial process when no one is watching - but everyone is judging?”
Freedom Without Friction
When creators gained speed and freedom, they lost something too. Gone are the gatekeepers - but so too are the guardrails. Without institutional friction, errors slip through faster. Misinformation scales. Sensationalism seduces. Exhausted creators, working alone, start to cut corners. Some don’t even know they’re doing it.
We’ve seen what happens when friction is removed but rigour isn’t replaced. What begins as liberation can quickly become a click-frenzy, an SEO-driven race to the bottom - where engagement trumps ethics and trust becomes fragile.
From Closed Rooms to Open Threads
And yet, a new kind of editorial culture is emerging. It doesn’t look like the old newsroom. It looks like Cleo Abram workshopping science stories in public, building transparency into every part of the process. It looks like Johnny Harris inviting his community into pre-production. Or Destin Sandling asking for engagement in Patreon. It looks like viewers in a comment thread catching a blind spot no editor ever saw.
This isn’t the end of editorial. It’s a redistribution of it.
AI proposes alternative story shapes. A peer suggests a reframe. A comment nudges a creator toward a more generous interpretation. And yes, sometimes the audience itself becomes a kind of real-time fact checker. It’s messy. But it’s powerful.
The Loop, Not the Ladder
The new editorial process is collaborative, distributed, improvisational. And it’s being built from the ground up by creators who care about the truth and its shape - not just the clicks.
Consider Cleo Abram again. Her editorial workflow doesn’t involve a single gatekeeper. Instead, it’s a loop: research, script, share, get feedback, adjust, publish, reflect. She uses experts to vet her thinking, her community to stress-test her assumptions, and AI tools to help keep the language precise, the claims verifiable, the arguments strong.
So what replaces the traditional editor? In place of a single editorial authority, a new system is forming - dynamic, decentralised, and built on feedback, trust, and tools. It looks like this:
🗨️ Comments as Crowd-Sourced Reviews
The audience is no longer passive. Comment sections - especially on platforms like YouTube, Substack, and Reddit - have become active editorial spaces. Viewers highlight factual errors, suggest clarifications, and often point to overlooked perspectives. While not always constructive, this feedback loop acts as a form of live peer review - and when creators listen, it becomes an engine for improvement.
💬 Discord Servers as Edit Rooms
Many creators now run private or semi-public Discord communities where they share early ideas, script drafts, or rough cuts. These spaces function as informal edit suites - collaborative, fast-moving, and deeply invested. Feedback here is often more thoughtful, because it comes from a self-selected group that understands the creator’s values and audience.
🔍 Transparent Sourcing as Trust-Building
Creators increasingly show their workings - citing sources, linking studies, disclosing tools used (including AI), and even publishing draft scripts for feedback. This openness isn’t just ethical; it’s strategic. In a media environment plagued by distrust, transparency becomes a powerful way to earn audience loyalty and distinguish yourself from noise. And the authenticity of it is working.
🤖 AI Tools as Co-Editors
AI isn’t replacing editorial judgement - but it is supporting it. Tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and the rest can help creators structure ideas, refine language, check for inconsistencies, and even stress-test arguments by simulating opposing views. Make, Mindstudio, and Relevance AI etc are turning these simpler tools into agents. Designed and used well, they become part of the editorial workflow, offering scalable support without reducing creative control.
Together, these elements form a networked editorial system - not top-down but participatory. Not gatekeeping, but scaffolding. The responsibility of editing shifts from a single pair of eyes to an evolving ecosystem of collaborators, viewers, and machines.
Editorial as a Social Contract
What we’re seeing is not the death of editorial - but its transformation. From a centralised role behind the curtain to a shared responsibility played out in full view. From a filter that limited who got to speak, to a scaffolding that helps those who do speak to do it well.
Editorial becomes a public process. A relationship, not a role.
A contract, not a correction.
Who Edits You?
So here’s the challenge: If you’re a creator, what structures are you building to keep yourself honest? If you’re a viewer, how are you shaping the stories you watch? And if you’re part of the legacy media, what do you think?
And if editorial is no longer a person in the room - who, or what, takes their place
Coming Next: The Shape of Future Content
What happens when the story doesn’t end with a single release? When it becomes modular, retellable, and native to multiple platforms at once?
Previously in this series:
Broadcast Media, Wither or Whither?
🗣️ This is part of Media Unmade - a series about how media breaks, reforms, and adapts in the age of AI and creator autonomy.
💬 Join the editorial system. Leave a comment. Offer a reframe. The edit, as ever, is ongoing.