Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute

Home / RJI Projects / Local readers and the newsroom / Executive summary

Local readers and the newsroom

Executive summary

Between August and October of 2007, the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute (RJI), in partnership with the Associated Press Managing Editors (APME), conducted a comprehensive study of credibility of online local journalism. The purpose of the study was to examine opinions of the general public as well as newsroom editors regarding the credibility of online local news content, interaction between newsroom and readers, and the attributes that comprise good journalism practice online.  

As of October 12, 2007, 500 interviews were randomly completed with adults 18 years of age or older throughout the United States, as well as 1,251 interviews with newsroom editors selected from U.S. daily newspapers. The surveys were conducted by the Center for Advanced Social Research (CASR) at the Missouri School of Journalism.

What follows are insights from the survey.

Newsroom transformation

• Of the 1,251 daily newspapers editors, 491 (39.2%) were print editors, 241 (19.3%) were online editors, and 519 (41.5%) were responsible for both print and online.

Use of online local news

• Of the 500 adults interviewed, 32% went online for local news.  Of the users, 67% sought out local news, 25% happened to come across it, and 8% reported “some of both.”

• 37% of the general public users went to the website of a newspaper for local news, 28% went to the website of a television station, 26%went to an independent website (such as MSN, Yahoo, Google, etc.), and six percent went to “others.”

Trustworthiness of local news content online

• When asked “How trustworthy do you find the local news content on your news organization’s website?” on a seven-point scale (7 = very trustworthy), the editors gave a rating of 6.61. Similarly, the public that went online for local news gave a rating of 5.60. This suggests that both the public and editors highly trusted the local news content online.  (For the general public, “website” was defined as the site they most frequently visit for local news; for editors, it was defined as their newspaper’s website.)

• Comparing the trustworthiness of what was online with that of the sponsoring news organization, 74% of the editors and 75% of the public were indifferent. Nearly one-fourth of the editors (24%) trusted print newspaper more, compared to 15% of the public. Three percent of the editors trusted web report more, compared to 10% of the public.

Interaction between newsroom and readers

• Two-thirds of the general public users of online local news (67%) thought the websites they most frequently visited invited users to comment on news stories and/or take part in online discussions of specific tops or issues, compared to 78% of the editors. Meanwhile, 13% of the public users either were not sure or did not know whether websites had the function, compared to 1% of the editors.       

• 68% of the editors knew their websites did not require those who comment to provide their real names, more than 53% of the public users saying so. In addition, 35% of the public were either not sure or did not know, compared to nine percent of the editors.
  

• Similarly, half of the public (50%) thought the websites they most frequently visited for local news invited users to comment without giving their names, while more than one-third (35%) were not sure of the policy on anonymity. In comparison, 58% of the editors knew that their websites invited users to comment without giving their names, while ten percent were not sure of their paper’s online policy regarding anonymity.

• When asked “do you think it is a good idea or bad idea that a website does not require names?” 64% of the editors thought it was a bad idea, and 24% a good idea. Meanwhile, 40% of the public thought it was a bad idea, and 45% a good idea, showing more split on this issue than did the editors. The difference was statistically significant.

• Regarding the likelihood of their posting a comment if they must provide their names, 27% of the public said “very likely,” 20% “somewhat likely,” 20% “somewhat unlikely,” and 27% “very unlikely,” suggesting that public opinion is split.   

Attributes of good journalism practice online

• Twenty-five (25) question items were used to explore which attributes were thought to comprise good journalism online by both editors and the public. Responses were coded on a 7-point scale ranging from “1” (very harmful to good journalism online) to “7” (very beneficial to good journalism online).  Further analysis resulted in three attributes of good journalism online. They are labeled as “basics of good journalism,” “interaction with readers,” and “depth of local coverage.”    

TABLE I: Mean scores regarding attributes of "good journalism" online

• Both the public and editors thought all the basics such as “verifying information,” “getting the facts right,” “correcting mistakes,” and both journalists and users “taking responsibility for accuracy” should be practiced to support good journalism online.

• A combined 50% of the public believed that “journalists joining the conversation online and giving personal views” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online, compared to a combined 27% of the editors thinking so. Meanwhile, a combined 58% of the editors thought the practice would be either somewhat or very harmful to good journalism online, significantly higher than 36% of the public.
  

• Both groups thought that “asking for user comments on many stories” would be beneficial to good journalism online. In response to “requiring users who participate to state their real identities,” a combined 70% of the editors thought it would support good journalism online, compared to a combined 45% of the public thinking so.
  

• A combined 45% of the public thought “inviting users to participate without using their real identities” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online, compared to a combined 22% of the editors saying so.
  

• A majority of both the public and editors agreed that it would be beneficial to good journalism online if journalists (1) “provide depth by links to content published by other sources,” (2) “provide depth by providing many layers of content produced by local journalists,” and (3) “provide depth by providing databases or similar information that users can explore on their own to find answers to their questions” online.    
  

• Both the public (74%) and editors (69%) agreed that “applying same standards to news produced by citizens as to the news written by journalists” would be beneficial to good journalism online.  A combined 92% of the editors thought “creating content intended to attract a diverse group of users” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online, compared to 68% of the public;

• In response to “allowing citizens to report their own stories in their own ways,” there were two similar normal distribution patterns. In editors, 44% thought it would be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online, 38% thought it would be harmful, and 18% were neutral.  Among the public, 49% believed it would be beneficial, 37% harmful, and 15% neutral.

• 49% of the editors thought “letting users’ interests and views determine what ideas and opinions are posted online” would be either somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online, 33% harmful, and 18% neutral.  Similarly, 45% of the public thought it would be beneficial, 39% harmful, and 15% neutral.

• 91% of the editors and 72% of the public thought “journalists actively seeking varied viewpoints from people to comment on the news” would be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online.  Likewise, 92% of the editors and 73% of the public believed “giving the public ways to provide information for news stories” would be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online.
  

• 88% of the editors and 79% of the public believe “journalists enforcing standards on such matters as crude language and personal attacks” will support good journalism online.  70% of the editors and 74% of the public thought “users enforcing standards on such matters as crude language and personal attacks” would be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online.
  

• Regarding “journalists limiting their roles to being independent observers and producing fair news coverage or clearly labeled commentary,” 92% of the editors and 91% of the public believe it will be somewhat or very beneficial to good journalism online.
  

• Concerning “journalists joining the conversation online and giving personal views,” the two groups showed different opinions. In the editors, 27% thought it will be beneficial to good journalism online, 58% harmful, and 15% neutral. In comparison, 50% of the public said it will be beneficial, 36% harmful, and 14% neutral.

Other significant findings

• More than 75% of the editors interviewed wanted survey results.
• Response rate of the editor survey was 72%.
• 75% of the public had access to the Internet either at home or work.

More information or questions about the survey should be directed to Dr. Kenneth Fleming, Director of Research of RJI at flemingk@missouri.edu.  Thank you.

Reader feedback