Today in the Washington Post Technology section there is a post mulling the implications of Hillary Clinton announcing her candidacy for President online, and, as the author calls it, "bypassing traditional media." The article then ruminates on the wishes of newspapers to, like Clinton in her announcement, speak directly to the people. Why do the newspapers want to do that? Because they think it's affecting their bottom line.
We have lost readers over the past two decades, at least partly because of our lack of interactivity. If you didn't like an article in the paper, you could write a letter to the editor. And good luck with that.
Now, if you don't like what I write, you can instantly go to the bottom of this blog and post a comment. Or if you don't like something I write in the newspaper, you can go to the story on our Web site, click on my byline and send me an e-mail right away.
The author then goes on to list some ways in which newspapers are trying to become more interactive, and finally asks,
Is it working? You tell us.
So I told them.
This was my comment:
Is it working? Sometimes.
I read several newspapers online every day, in addition to political blogs and news magazines. I am encouraged by the efforts of news media to become more interactive. However, I feel traditional media faces a major challenge in engaging digital media: understanding what "interactive" means.
Interaction necessarily implies an exchange, which means that an author must be willing to engage the reader as an equal, or at least as one deserving of respect. I feel that most reporters who post blogs, or invite comments on their articles, are less than willing to take our comments or criticisms seriously. We online readers expect transparent, factual representation. When we ask for corrections, updates, or explanations, we expect our comments to be considered. Those of us that take the time to read an article expect the author not to denigrate us or call us names when we disagree. Specifically, when a reader points out a factual error in a report, it is responsible journalism to fix the error and apologise for the mistake. It is not responsible journalism to call the reader a "wingnut" who "didn't like" the article.
More generally, those of us who regularly read and write blogs often find our portrayal in traditional media to be unfavorable. We want interaction with reporters and news media because we want them to do their jobs better. We want stories without factual errors. We want honest, up-to-date corrections should errors occur. We want claims substantiated by data, not by anecdotes representing what "some people" are thinking. We want the truth, not rumors, to be told. We as readers deserve to get those things, and to get them without being insulted or trivialised.
I doubt my post will be read, or if read, I doubt it will have any impact. And I think the author was speaking in general terms about his assessment of the newspaper industry, not speaking for the Post itself. But I am tired of traditional news media trying to "interact" without taking the audience seriously. Interactivity is not a magic collection of new online features that will make newspapers popular again. It is a means by which we can improve the quality of journalism.
So this is what I wish all reporters (and editors) could figure out: we want interactivity to ensure that you do your jobs correctly. We want to tell you when we don't like an article, but more importantly, we want to tell you when your article is wrong. And when it's wrong, we want you to fix it.
To all newspapers, magazines, and television news channels: we are not crazy, or unhinged, or ditto-heads because we point out your mistakes and expect you to tell the truth.