Study finds gap between editors and readers in ground rules for online convers... - The Diigo Meta page

• 10 Apr 08
  

  Yule Heibel

  Fascinating study regarding the discrepancies between what MSM professionals believe and what its reading public believes. The latter think that anonymous comments are ok; that journalists/ authors participating in online conversations with readers is ok; and that expressions of personal views by journalists are ok. The 'professionals' believe the exact opposite. Hmmm.

  mit_techreview socialmedia socialtheory conversations media newspapers blogging

  • Newspaper readers agree with editors on the basics of what makes good
    journalism, but they are more apt to want looser rules for online
    conversations, a new study on news credibility has found.
  • Online Journalism Credibility Study released Tuesday
    by the Associated Press Managing Editors group and the Donald W. Reynolds
    Journalism Institute at the University
    of Missouri
  • 3 more annotations...
  • • Some 70 percent of editors surveyed said requiring commenters to disclose
      their identities would support good journalism, while only 45 percent of the
      public did. Similarly, 58 percent of editors said letting journalists join
      online conversations and give personal views would harm journalism, but only 36
      percent of the public agreed.
    • ''There's some indication that readers are looking for something more online.
      Whether it's information about our expertise, our knowledge, our background,
      I'm not really sure.''
    • Editors and readers also agreed on the desirability of depth, such as links
      to content published elsewhere and databases or other information visitors can
      explore on their own.

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.