Editors, It’s Time to Evolve Our Lingo
Editing software changes, but old terminology and icons have a way of sticking around. We still call folders “bins” and add cuts with the “blade” icon. It’s time to stop the nonsense and evolve our video editing lingo. In this article, I propose we make the biggest terminology change of all and drop the term “Non-Linear Editor” aka the NLE, altogether.
So what’s the problem with calling it an NLE? Unlike bins and blade tools, NLE is actually an accurate description of what editing software does – arrange clips without requiring it be done with a specific order. However, calling it an NLE today feels like calling a microwave an electronic magnetron radio wave emitter. Is there something better out there? Something that fits a wider range of what modern editing software does? In this article, I’m going to dig into this idea and offer a suggestion of what we can call the editing software of the future.
Defining our primary creative tool by what it is not (linear) is a relic of a transition that ended decades ago. For a new generation of creators, “linear editing” isn’t a memory—it’s a history lesson they shouldn’t have to take just to understand the name of their software. It is time to stop defining our craft by its departure from tape and start defining it by its creative potential.
Where the term NLE comes from
According to Wikipedia, “The term nonlinear editing was formalized in 1991 with the publication of Michael Rubin’s book, Nonlinear: A Guide to Digital Film and Video Editing [14].” It was formalized to solve a specific marketing problem: explaining to editors why digital systems were better than tape-to-tape suites. In a linear world, if you wanted to change a shot at the beginning of a reel, you had to re-record everything that followed.
To tape-based video editors, “Non-Linear” was a revolutionary change. It meant instant access, total flexibility, and the freedom to experiment without mechanical consequences. But today, the “non-linear” nature of software is an invisible baseline, as redundant as calling a microwave an “electronic food warmer.” We know it’s fast; we know it’s flexible.
So why keep a term that means “not tape editing?”
The Problem: Defining by Technology
When we lead software names with the technical mechanics of a tool, we prioritize the “how” over the “why.” In classrooms, the focus should not be on whether software is non-linear—that assumption is built-in. The focus should be on creative intention, process, and story results.
At EditMentor, the goal isn’t to teach students how to use a blade tool; it’s to teach them how to make storytelling decisions. When we use labels like “NLE,” we inadvertently frame editing as a technical hurdle to clear rather than a narrative language to master. The software is a tool. The ability to shape the narrative is the skill. By sticking to 30-year-old jargon, we keep the conversation anchored in the machine room instead of the writer’s room.
The Search for New Lingo (The “What” instead of the “What Not”)
We’re going to need some new words. To find them, we have to define what actually describes our craft and what is simply holding us back.
Video Editor — No: Do we even need the word “video”? Since modern software can cut any type of media, using “video” leads us down a path of unnecessary subdivisions like film, television, YouTube, or podcasting. Descript started as a podcast tool but now cuts video; Premiere Pro handles VR and social clips alike. We are looking for a general term that isn’t limited by the file type.
Media Editor — No: If we move away from “video” because it’s too narrow, “media” feels like the logical successor. However, “media” is a technology word—it describes print, digital, and social formats. As a technical term, it lacks the soul of what we do, which is storytelling.
Editor — No: This is the hardest one to let go. We are editors, yes, but should we use that term to describe our software? The word “editor” implies fixing mistakes or trimming rather than a creator building a narrative from the ground up.
Tool — No: Technically, everything is a tool, but calling our sophisticated software a “tool” violates our goal of moving away from technical jargon. A hammer is also a tool.
Story — Yes: This is the heart of the work. Whether it’s a 15-second ad or a three-hour epic, the technical terms are only there to service the story. This word encompasses everything we are actually doing when we sit down at the computer and edit.
Engine — Maybe: The word “engine” implies a source of power and a mechanism that “drives” a narrative forward. Unlike “editor,” an engine suggests that we are powering the narrative with this tool. The human does the work and the engine is the machine—we are driving it to a specific narrative destination.
Conclusion: Introducing the New Name for NLE
The transition away from “NLE” isn’t just about semantics; it’s about pedagogical and professional clarity. We need a name that reflects the modern reality of what we’re doing: we aren’t just avoiding the limitations of tape; we aren’t only fixing mistakes; we are building a narrative through iteration.While the industry may take years to shed its acronyms, our classrooms and professional communities can start today. Let’s stop talking about what our tools aren’t and start championing what they do. It’s time to retire the NLE and finally start mastering the Story Engine.
