Editorially anchored communities

Hegel, the German philosopher, had a theory of what drives history: conflict between the status quo and a new challenge, resolving (sometimes after much sturm und drang) into a stable synthesis. In 2025, I predict that the journalistic status quo and the challengers of digital social media will begin to resolve — into editorially anchored communities.

We all know the traditional status quo. In it, journalism is produced centrally and “broadcast” out: over airwaves, through ink and paper, or via ones and zeroes. It is unpersonalized. There may be reactive letters to the editor, or comments tucked below digital articles. Conceptually, the content and the conversation are happening in public, with no access constraints beyond perhaps a transactional paywall. The social topography is a “hub and spokes,” with the journalist at the center of the wheel. Most people are mere consumers or subscribers.

The challengers of digital social media are also familiar to us all. Content is produced by decentralized users and flows through a network of nodes and lines. It is heavily personalized. There is rich and chaotic discussion, often outstripping the original content. Conceptually, the conversation is happening in semi-private, with parts of it gated to invitation-only groups. The social topography is a network of networks; there is no center. Most people are users, with agency and purpose.

Those two models have been locked in conflict for over a decade. The social media companies have a deep insight: that people want to be more than passive consumers of content; they want to be creators and curators, and have agency and dignity by driving the conversation personally. But the traditional media companies also have a deep insight: that only a strong editorial process, with its checks and balances, can generally produce a coherent and shared understanding of reality.

So the two models have gone back and forth. Traditional media points out, often correctly, that social media is rife with misinformation, as users race to the bottom in a competition for outrage and eyeballs. Social media points out, often correctly, that traditional media can be out of touch, condescendingly trying to dictate a narrative, perhaps in a biased way. Traditional media replies that social media often seems unsustainable for society. And social media replies that traditional media often seems unsustainable financially.

From this conflict, there is a path forward. A way to combine the strengths of both models into a new, stable synthesis: editorially anchored communities.

In editorially anchored communities, the core concept is a community platform — a branded, managed social environment that plays a central role in the ideation, creation, and distribution of content. Think of a private LinkedIn, with immersive branded apps and websites.

In those environments, content is produced by both journalists and decentralized users, but the journalistic content is privileged. There is personalization, but only to a point. There is rich discussion, but it is organized and moderated. Conceptually, the conversation is happening in semi-private, always in view of the town square. The social topography is a hierarchy of networks, with journalists at the top. Most people are members — not subscribers, not users, but meaningful parts of something larger than themselves.

There are myriad questions, of course, about how such a model will look like in practice. Will journalists be comfortable operating in this sort of context? How will moderation be managed? What revenue models will work best? Can existing community platform tools be deployed more or less as-is, or will heavier customization be needed?

Overall, the Hegelian tension has been building between the journalistic status quo and the challengers of digital social media. In 2025, the synthesis will begin to emerge.