A study, titled the Online Journalism Credibility Study, has just come out that shows a gap in how newspaper editors and readers feel about anonymous comments being posted on news articles.

The Results

The editors, overwhelmingly (70%) felt that anonymous comments harmed proper journalism, most likely due to the flood of factual corrections and emotional rants they get in these comments, neither of which seem to make them smile. Only 45% of readers, on the other hand, felt that allowing anonymous comments was bad journalism.

Even more telling, 58% of editors were against journalists adding comments in news stories which may give away personal views, while only 36% of the readers felt that way. That tells me that readers are very interested in hearing responses from the writers of an article after they comment.

The Allure of Responding to Newspaper Articles

I have felt many times during reading an article this sentiment - “I disagree, I only wish there was a way to explain why this article is wrong”. The ability to post comments on stories online now provide an outlet to voice my opinion. Given the amount of comments I see in the average news story these days, I’d say many other people have had the same feelings.

A common complaint of many newspaper readers in the past has been that there is a lack of objectivity to news, and the selection of what is given the most attention shows a certain lack of objectivity as well. The solution that occurred was largely due to blogs popping up all over the internet, preparing readers to interact with news stories, instead of just reading them.

Blogs were unique in that they relished reader comments, and openly asked readers to contribute to a story with their thoughts, opinions, criticism. Pretty soon, online newspaper sites, such as the NY Times, were forced into accepting comments on many of their news articles, in order to keep readers on their sites.

Newspapers Are Losing Relevance (and Profits)

As I mentioned in the past, newspapers are losing advertisers, readers, subscribers, and importance. Editors’ and news organizations’ long held beliefs about the world “needing them” has made them slow to adopt features like open conversations on articles. Basically, there is no more marketplace interest left in pure facts, devoid of emotion or a particular personal view. It is no coincidence that blogs are so popular - they usually have strong views in a particular direction, and openly invite dialogue.

News Cycle

Newspapers are also having trouble keeping up with the pace of the news cycle these days. Between two issues of the NY Times, most online news sites have had 8-10 different “headline stories”. This promotes more interest and visits, due to the visitors’ expectations of getting fresh materials frequently.

Editors’ Value is Dropping

It sounds to me like the editors are worried. Very worried. You see, they suddenly have a LOT more competition for your eyes. There is only so much time one can spend reading in a given day, and between millions of blogs and comments being posted on newspaper sites, they are losing their “market share of voice”. And, don’t forget, people are producing much more relevant “local news”, in the way of social news. Sites like Facebook, MySpace, provide an easy way to hear about social news in your community and social circle.

Is it fair to say edited news is dying out?