With the evolution of online journalism, newspapers have been tackling a number of questions about the journalistic standards for this relatively new medium.
Some of us argue that all of the same standards we apply to the content for the print edition should apply to the Web-based product. Others feel the Web has to have a completely different set of content guidelines.
We've wrestled with that question ourselves, to be sure. For the most part, we're applying the same standards in both places. We work to ensure the accuracy, fairness and timeliness of our content in The Citizen and auburnpub.com. We're not going to post a story on the Web site that we wouldn't be comfortable putting into the print edition.
But there are some key differences, mostly in terms of how readers can interact with us and provide their own content.
In the print edition, we only publish reader comments from people who have signed their names to the opinions. We have a limit on the length of those comments (300 words) and how frequently a person can have one published (once per week).
Online, however, readers can post comments anonymously on every article at the site. We don't have any limitations on the length of these comments and we allow people to post comments as frequently as they would like.
Fortunately, it looks like our policies for online comments are in line with what most readers believe is appropriate, based on a major survey on online journalism credibility conducted by the Associated Press Managing Editors.
APME last fall surveyed both editors and online journalism readers about a range of issues, and they found some interesting disparities. A report on the survey, called “The Online Credibility Gap,” can be found at www.apme.com/credibility/online. There's some fascinating information there for people who are interested in this subject.
A few of the highlights:
€ There was considerable difference between readers and editors regarding online anonymity. The survey found 64 percent of editors felt it is a bad idea for a Web site to not require names, but just 40 percent of the public felt the same way.
€ Among editors, 58 percent felt it is somewhat or very harmful to online journalism to allow journalists themselves to join online conversations and give personal views. But just 36 percent of readers had the same response.
€ Both groups felt strongly (88 percent of editors and 79 percent of public) that journalists should enforce standards on crude language and personal attacks in these online conversations.
There's plenty of additional information to digest in the report, and we'll be taking a careful look at all of it to see what changes we might need to make.
Executive editor Jeremy Boyer's column appears Saturdays and he can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 231 or jeremy.boyer@lee.net
We've wrestled with that question ourselves, to be sure. For the most part, we're applying the same standards in both places. We work to ensure the accuracy, fairness and timeliness of our content in The Citizen and auburnpub.com. We're not going to post a story on the Web site that we wouldn't be comfortable putting into the print edition.
But there are some key differences, mostly in terms of how readers can interact with us and provide their own content.
In the print edition, we only publish reader comments from people who have signed their names to the opinions. We have a limit on the length of those comments (300 words) and how frequently a person can have one published (once per week).
Online, however, readers can post comments anonymously on every article at the site. We don't have any limitations on the length of these comments and we allow people to post comments as frequently as they would like.
Fortunately, it looks like our policies for online comments are in line with what most readers believe is appropriate, based on a major survey on online journalism credibility conducted by the Associated Press Managing Editors.
APME last fall surveyed both editors and online journalism readers about a range of issues, and they found some interesting disparities. A report on the survey, called “The Online Credibility Gap,” can be found at www.apme.com/credibility/online. There's some fascinating information there for people who are interested in this subject.
A few of the highlights:
€ There was considerable difference between readers and editors regarding online anonymity. The survey found 64 percent of editors felt it is a bad idea for a Web site to not require names, but just 40 percent of the public felt the same way.
€ Among editors, 58 percent felt it is somewhat or very harmful to online journalism to allow journalists themselves to join online conversations and give personal views. But just 36 percent of readers had the same response.
€ Both groups felt strongly (88 percent of editors and 79 percent of public) that journalists should enforce standards on crude language and personal attacks in these online conversations.
There's plenty of additional information to digest in the report, and we'll be taking a careful look at all of it to see what changes we might need to make.
Executive editor Jeremy Boyer's column appears Saturdays and he can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 231 or jeremy.boyer@lee.net
The Citizens' Say
There are No comments posted.