Editors of online newspapers and readers disagree on what constitutes credibility. Findings show differing viewpoints on journalists sharing personal opinions, links with advertising and anonymous posting.
News University, a website featuring journalism courses, aired a live chat and slide show yesterday on the credibility gap in online journalism.
Dr. J. “Bart” Bartosek, editor of The Palm Beach Post gave insight into a recent survey by the Reynolds Journalism Institute and Associated Press Managing Editors on how readers and editors interpret credibility. Researchers conducted 500 phone interviews with readers and about 1,200 editors of online newspapers. That is, daily papers with websites.
What I find interesting is that readers don’t feel it’s harmful for journalists to include personal stories and viewpoints in articles. In a slide titled, “Actions: What editors should do,” one item said “We can value reporting and commentary that includes viewpoints and personal lives.”
However, the survey didn’t ask what readers meant by “personal views.” Does that mean first person accounts of news events, personal interpretation of facts and data?
My instinct is to conclude that readers like first person accounts of news events. I read an article sometime ago about a journalist recounting how she was involved in a car chase across the desert. It was riveting and made me appreciate more the dangers reporters go through when trying to get a story (I’m trying to find the source). Personal accounts add personality to a story. Journalists aren’t robots who just stick to the facts.
The reality is, there are many truths to a story. And a journalist’s experience is also one truth.
Another point of contention is anonymous posting. I’m against it. I think commenter’s personal information should be kept private, however, posting a comment on a website is public discourse. You wouldn’t hide your identity when taking your two allotted minutes to give your opinion in a county board meeting. You wouldn’t sign”anonymous” in a letter to the editor. Why should reader commentary be treated any differently?
People can say whatever they please under the First Amendment. However, if someone doesn’t take responsibility for their opinions, that’s trolling.
All in all, it’s necessary to have more communication between editors and readers. Editors need to be open and explain their policies. Readers need to communicate what they think is lacking or confusing.
What do you think?
