photo by tiago . ribeiro

While everyone else is excitedly chatting up Trust Agents: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve Reputation, and Earn Trust by Chris Brogan and Julien Smith and Gary Vaynerchuk‘s soon-to-be-released Crush It!: Why NOW Is the Time to Cash In on Your Passion, the book I’ve been most looking forward to is Kristina Halvorson‘s Content Strategy for the Web. (Yes, I plan to read the other two as well. Leave me alone.)

Kristina is the founder and president of Brain Traffic, a Minneapolis-based agency specializing in content strategy and writing for the web. She’s widely acknowledged as one of the leading authorities and evangelists for better web content.

One of the interesting paradoxes of the seemingly bottomless well that is the web is that, while you can pour an infinite amount of content into your site, too much information will overwhelm your audience and make your site less useful, not more. Likewise, poorly organized content will simply frustrate users and drive them away to simpler, more intuitive sites that offer what they seek.

Kristina’s book was just released and I haven’t had time to read it yet, but a quick skim tells me she’s a kindred spirit.

Her first admonition: Do less, not more. Yes, there is enormous pressure to constantly add more to a site as new products and services are introduced, tools such as Twitter and blogs generate additional content and, as Kristina puts it, “the Great River of Content flows freely, rapidly flooding our customers with too much information and drowning its keepers (web editors and content managers) in the process.”

But, she adds, web content is pretty much pointless unless it does one of two things:

1. Supports a key business objective.
2. Supports a user (or customer) in completing a task.

We’ve all been to sites that subscribe to the “more is better” approach. It isn’t. More’s just more. If there’s content on your site that doesn’t meet these objectives, chances are you don’t really need it to achieve your communication goals. Worse, it may be getting in the way.

As we mourn the passing of TV news anchor Walter Cronkite, I can’t help but wonder what kind of social media practitioner he would have been had he come into his professional own today instead of four decades ago. After all, he was considered to be “the most trusted man in America” by most Americans during the height of his career in the 1960s and ’70s.

When we talk about social media, issues of trust, credibility and authenticity are always key to the conversation. Walter Cronkite had all these in spades. In today’s media circus, it may be hard to imagine a television newscaster having this kind of trusted public profile, but for those of us who grew up watching Cronkite, it’s hard to overstate his role in making the CBS Evening News must-see TV for anyone who wanted to understand what was going on in the world.

Cronkite was recruited to CBS News in 1950 by Edward R. Murrow. They coined the term “anchor” for the role he played at the 1952 Democratic and Republican Conventions. And when he became anchorman of the CBS Evening News in 1962, he began his transformation into an American icon. No TV anchor has had the impact Cronkite had on the news, and none will.

So what does Walter Cronkite have to teach us about social media? Talk about someone who epitomized old-style mass media, you think. But even a cursory examination of his career suggests that here was an individual who would have done quite well had he begun to make his mark today.

He knew his stuff. Unlike so many of the talking blockheads dominating what passes for TV news today, Cronkite was a skilled journalist, having distinguished himself as a war correspondent for United Press International during World War II. Anyone who watched Cronkite’s anchoring of more than a dozen political conventions and elections  could see this. I know it’s in vogue among some to encourage others to jump into social media despite a lack of writing ability, critical thinking skills or anything interesting to share, but Cronkite is a potent reminder that talent and expertise are far more interesting than the lack thereof.

He was a great explainer. One of the traits of a great journalist is the ability to take a complex issue and explain it in a way that anyone can understand. Cronkite had strong editorial chops when it came to clarifying the news. CBS didn’t break the Watergate scandal, but Cronkite’s 14-minute report on Oct. 27, 1972, explaining what happened and putting it into context is widely credited with making it a national story.

He was trusted. With apologies to Chris Brogan for misusing his phrase, Cronkite was the original trust agent. Opinion polls in the 1970s and ’80s repeatedly identified him as the most trusted public figure in America. He was the benchmark pollsters used to gauge public trust in presidential contenders. Those of us who grew up on Cronkite’s nightly broadcasts still remember how he closed the news with “And that’s the way it is.” If Cronkite said it, then that’s the way it was. No one in TV news today has that kind of credibility.

He was authentic. Cronkite would be the first to criticize himself for those rare moments when he let his emotions slip out from behind the objective anchor facade, but those were the moments that will be most mentioned in the countless news reports, remembrances and appreciations. The most famous of these were his reporting the death of John F. Kennedy and the Apollo moon landing. Cronkite’s obvious sorrow in reporting the former and awe at the latter were shared by millions of viewers. His commentary in 1968 that the Vietnam War was a lost cause was notable because of the lengths Cronkite usually took to appear an objective reporter of the day’s events. When he departed from this approach to weigh in on Vietnam or Watergate, his influence was all the greater because of it.

For some, the passing of Walter Cronkite may be just another marker along the path toward a very different media landscape. For me it’s a reminder of the traits that we’ll need to be successful in this increasingly complex new environment.