Is Dazed right to open its talent list up to a public vote?

This week Rob Alderson welcomes the excellent Dazed 100 list of defining creative pioneers but wonders why readers are being asked to help rank the entries. As ever you can join the debate using the comment thread below….

In our final Behind The Screens feature this week we spoke to Tim Noakes, editor-in-chief of Dazed. Among the many interesting insights he shared with us, one line in particular really struck me. Answering a question about how Dazed’s print and online offerings complement each other and how they differ, Tim said: “Unlike other sites, we strive to not just report on culture but to help create it.”

This won’t come as a massive surprise to anyone familiar with Dazed’s output, but I was interested to see it stated so categorically, and I was still thinking about it while perusing the Dazed 100 later in the week. It’s described as “the definitive rundown of the visual pioneers, fashion prodigies and musical mavericks redefining creativity for 2015 and beyond” and features designers, musicians, models, photographers, filmmakers, actors, stylists and artists.

But read on and it emerges that the Dazed 100 will actually constitute two lists. “Our picks appear in the order we think best suits. It’s our assessment of the potency of these pivotal people: now, it’s your turn to rank them. Whenever you read a piece on someone you support, click the upvote button at the bottom of the article or sidebar, and they’ll rise through the ranks of the Readers’ 100, to be announced on December 16.”

I think it’s interesting that having curated such a well-chosen list of 100 young talents, Dazed are now handing over some semblance of power to their readers. Of course it’s a clever way to engage the audience with the project, but to look at it another way is this something readers would expect or demand?

Maybe I am old, or curmudgeonly but increasingly I am relieved when I come across content in which I am not expected or encouraged to participate. I love the Dazed 100 and think it’s a brilliant list. I trust the Dazed team and the collaborators who have identified these creative talents, but that’s where it ends for me.

I may not agree with some of the rankings but I want Dazed to curate the list in the order it sees fit; I have no wish whatsoever to see how a public vote, which is so susceptible to all manner of strange vicissitudes, re-orders the top 100. That’s not to say that readers don’t have an important part to play in contemporary journalism – they obviously do – but maybe sometimes the balance has tipped too far.

As publishers I think we should trust our instincts. As readers I think we should trust the publishers.