Vol. 4, No. 856
Interactivity A Challenge to the
Way Journalists Do Business
By Allan R. Andrews
American Reporter Correspondent
WASHINGTON
-- The problem with "interactive forums" on news
organizations' Web sites is that visitors mostly talk to one another.
We rarely get what the editors think of the criticisms, suggestions,
thoughts, ideas and arguments of those who post their views.
Take the Freedom Forum's recently renovated web site "free!"
One of the
most comprehensive news sites on the Web, free! devotes its attention
primarily to First Amendment issues in the news. As it turns out,
the
four freedoms of that amendment -- freedom of religion, freedom
of
speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly and petition
--
cast a wide net over the news of any day.
The site's "Forum" [http://truman.fac.org/forum/welcome.asp]
invites
visitors with this enticing blurb: "Speak out and be heard!
News
doesn't have to be a one-way transmission. With The Forum, a new
message board provided by free!, you can give your side of the
day's
events or comment on First Amendment subjects that concern you."
Sounds inviting, huh? Some interesting comments are posted. But
there's
no indication of what the editors of free! think of the postings.
In my
understanding, this is not "interactive" journalism;
it's simply a
digital continuation of one-way journalism. It's online journalism
surrendering its unique capabilities to the print journalism model
by
reproducing static letters to the editor.
The
editors at free! give themselves away by labeling their "Forum"
as
a "message board." Visitors can post to their heart's
content, but they
have no assurances than anyone is listening or cares at free!
other
than when some other visitor responds. I call this a truncated
form of
"interactive" journalism.
Interactivity demands give and take from the editors, who in many
online forums are mostly taking but not giving. Some journalists
are
using forums to collect information or tips for story and column
ideas
instead of engaging the people who post in meaningful dialogue.
To be fair to free!, the site was recently revamped and hasn't
had much
time to build a band of posters who might elicit some response
from the
editors, and free! certainly addresses key issues in its various
sections. However, true interactivity, the Internet's supposed
strength
for journalists, just isn't there as it could be.
This has been a problem with traditional "letters to the
editor"
sections. Often, letter writers get into heated exchanges with
one
another, but the editors remain silent and hidden facilitators,
expressing no opinion, providing no information, and satisfying
no
hunger for knowledge and meaning. I don't count editorials because
they're generally responding to the news not to readers.
Again, to be fair, many news sites provide opportunities for visitors
to contact staff, but any ensuing discussion via this route is
not
public, which is what "interactive journalism" should
be about.
Chat
rooms are not what I'm talking about, although an interactive
letters-to-the-editor exchange might evolve into a meaningful
chat
forum. Most chat rooms deteriorate into sophomoric, one-upmanship
blather or celebrity-focussed expressions of adoration and abhorrence.
The Washington Post's online site gives online visitors a glimpse
of
the kind of forum I'm advocating. Its "Talk Central"
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/talk/front.htm] allows visitors
to register and engage in discussions with editors and reporters
from
both the electronic and print editions. Many of the Post's news
people
valiantly respond to most, if not all, the postings in "Talk
Central."
To date, the Post's effort is the best I've come across on the
Web that
moves in the direction of truly "interactive editorial exchange."
The Post also features one of its columnists, Bob Levey, in a
weekly,
one-hour, give-and-take with those who post questions, and Levey
often
brings in working reporters or commentators to handle the questions.
The Post demands some stringent rules in its registration process
so
"Talk Central" won't follow the chaotic path of Usenet
and the
generally irrelevant chat rooms of AOL. Not all the editorial
staff is
on board for the interactive activity, but kudos belong to those
who
have, quite literally, put themselves online.
The New York Times, which runs online Forums similar to the Post's,
doesn't appear to have its editorial staff deeply involved in
any
interactive exchanges. New Jersey Online, the Newark Star-Ledger's
home, runs forums [http://forums.nj.com/], and some of its staff
make a
small effort to provide give and take to the forum posters. The
L.A.
Times provides a listing of all of its staff's e-mail addresses
and
leaves the interactivity largely up to the staff
[http://www.latimes.com/HOME/TALK/]. That provision is not found
on
most newspaper sites, however.
A
businessman said to me the other day after watching a television
interview about worker's wages in an overseas factory, "You
know, you
never see them ask the American supervisor how much he's making."
That's the kind of probing question consumers of stories in the
news
need to be able to put to the writers and producers. "How
come you
didn't ask thus and so?" Keep in mind that often television
brings us
journalists being interviewed by other journalists. When does
the
listener get his or her shot at Mike Wallace or Bernard Shaw?
Larry
King's TV forum provides a glimpse of this potential via the telephone.
The Internet is providing journalists with tools to make their
profession truly interactive in a manner with which traditional
interviews are unable to keep abreast.
True, something is lost in an e-mail exchange. Yes, there's room
for
bogus communications and special interest panderers. These criticisms,
however, don't detract from the Internet's value in generating
responses. I'm not suggesting journalists give up legwork, research
and
telephoning; I'm simply stating the case for another tool in our
arsenal.
I'm not suggesting that editors and reporters provide an answer
to
every posting, or attempt to out-dredge Matt Drudge, but intelligent
selectivity should produce some fascinating dialogues between
the
professional news gatherers and their audience.
Some
might complain that what I'm advocating would demand that editors
and writers spend a good part of their day responding to e-mail.
My
response is, so what! Journalists using e-mail strikes me as similar
to
"working one's sources" in the traditional sense. I
have a hunch such
interactivity will lead to thousands of hitherto uncovered stories,
and
I suspect it would go a long way toward educating an increasingly
skeptical and mistrusting audience.
The Internet gives the audience a portal to the newsroom and to
news
gatherers they've never had before, but journalists still hold
the key
that locks or unlocks the access door to genuine editorial
interactivity.
Allan R. Andrews can be reached at allan.andrews@reporters.net
For more commentary, go to Online Meanderings or to Pacific
Sunday Meanderings.