News-Record.com

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.

The comes from the AP story about the latest survey comparing journalists' and readers' views of the Web. Almost predictably, the coverage of it makes journalists look silly. (Insert my known skepticism about the value of polls and surveys here.)

Aside from the fact that we are silly, there is some interesting stuff in it if you actually read the survey or, as I did, the executive summary. Journalists and Web readers are in step on many, many issues.

Cutting to the chase on this one. My feelings on anonymous comments are out there: Don't like 'em; will take 'em.

The second piece of the above survey result about journalists "joining the conversation online and giving personal views" is trickier because it is two questions in one: join the conversation and give personal views. And that queers the interpretation of the response.

Question 1: Journalists must join in the conversation with readers. It's no longer an option; it's part of the job. Readers are the people journalists are trying to serve. And we don't want staff members to engage with them? Of course, we do. It's about transparency, clarity and having civilized discussion about ideas. It's what people do. It's what journalists do. Conversation improves credibility, in real life and online.

Question 2: Journalists can comfortably give their personal views about topics on which they are knowledgeable. That said, I do have qualms about reporters giving an opinion on an issue they are writing about. Say City Council is deliberating over whether to reopen White Street Landfill. Should the City Hall reporter weigh in with her opinion? I'd say no. I think she can provide additional information and insight in her comments. She can "set the record straight" for other commenters if someone posts an inaccuracy. She can answer questions. But, honestly, who cares what she thinks about reopening the landfill?

The talking heads on television, I think, skew the public's perception of journalists. The fact is, in most cases, reporters I know rarely have opinions about what they write, either because they can see all the gray or they don't feel strongly one way or the other.

My favorite comment from the story about the survey:

The study was designed to help gauge the priorities and practices newspapers should be establishing as they increasingly blend their print and Web operations. It produced few answers on how editors can meet reader expectations online without compromising credibility.

If I read the last sentence correctly, it says that editors must compromise credibility to meet reader expectations. That's not the way I read the results of the survey, and it's not my perception on how journalists serve the public.

Update: In the comments, Michelle McClellan says what I wish I had said: As long as journalists think they have to sacrifice credibility to meet reader expectations, they will not embrace abundant opportunities to do both.