That's all you need to be reasonably good at the job. Best wishes.
Putting on my former Editor (Trade Press magazines) hat on: Um, there's a bit more to it.
Chivvying those who have promised articles into actually providing said articles.
Translating delivered articles into something readable (the amount of work that requires varies from author to author). While still retaining the voice of the author, without putting your own accent on it.
Ensuring that the schedule has a balance such that one doesn't have a glut on a specific topic (unless there is a special on that topic for whatever reason).
Ensuring that there are sufficient reserve filler articles in the stockpile for when the chivvying mentioned at the top hasn't worked.
Knowing when to reject a piece, and to do so for good reasons, not bad.
Making sure that the credit for the blog goes to the people who deserve it - the authors - and not the editor. When the editor becomes the centre-piece, that's a problem. A good editor is pretty much invisible. Everything just happens and no-one sees what the editor has done.
Realising that editing is a hamster wheel. All that publishing a piece means is that you move on to the next. The wheel never stops.
Combining words with artwork.
@AndyC and
@Gary Oswald provided masterclasses in that.
Making sure that articles are legal. There are authors around who regard copyright as a suggestion rather than a rule.
Knowing how to talk to each individual author and get more out of them.
Allowing debate while not allowing debate to develop into abuse.
This list goes on ...
But the first step is indeed being prepared to publish articles one begs to disagree with, providing they are cogently argued and referenced.