Web Journalists: We Can FIX This

By: Cassie Whitt
CassieWhitt@Gmail.com

As one among the tiny group of us who are in the online sequence, May 26's readings about the credibility issues we face as web journalists was a bummer. Yet, it's nothing we haven't heard before and nothing that I think is irreversible if we dedicate ourselves to changing the state of things.

Still, one has to admit it's a bit of a bummer, as one of those fighting for truth on the web, to be grouped in with a genre perceived, as the survey article showed, in a primarily negative light by the public.

We're not all bad guys, I promise!

We must remember, in order to even start changing things, that this is our fault. Journalists on the web need to take as much pride in and put as much thought into what they post online as they put in print or broadcast. In fact, perhaps we should put more care into it because of the viral nature of our work. A simple tweet or tumblr post from a reader can turn our viewing audience from one to one-thousand in seconds. If we have posted misinformation, by the time we can even think to make a correction, it has already been passed around the world.

What might have contributed to web reporting's downfall in the eye of content-consumers is the fact that news outlets, when they went online, placed less value on their web content. Newspapers offered stories for free. Now, to regain profits, many newspapers online are trying to put up paywalls: something that should have been done in the first place. Free content is perceived as lesser content.

Now that we've established that it's no one's fault but our own, let's change things, shall we?

In the second article, we read about the credibility gap online marketing creates. Things like "advertorials" and online "magalogs" (created by brands, but they read like editorial content) blur the line between advertising and reporting. I know that, as the article mentions, Forbes has a new pay-to-blog policy. I believe there is a simple remedy: We need to monetize our content somehow, but we need to be absolutely explicit about content that is paid for by marketers. "PAID CONTENT" should be prominent in the headline, and the article or blog post should have some sort of small explanation of what that means. To let a reader believe something is journalistic work when it is an ad is unethical and irresponsible.

One of the biggest issues we face as web journalists is competition. In a 24-hour news cycle, he who posts second might as well have posted last. But does that matter if "he who posts first" has a million fact and syntax errors in a story? I recently posted a blog entry for my JOUR416 (Web Seminar) class explaining my method for making sure what I post is correct. I always make sure I have several sources before I even think of posting something. In a world of leaks--often fake ones at that--a journalist should sort out what's true and false for readers. Reporting on a whim should not be an option. And sloppiness for the sake of speed will only make web reporters look bad. As one of the articles we read for class showed, readers do not like that and perceive it as a "loosening of standards."

We must stand up for truth in a world where sensationalism breeds web hits and ad clicks. Because I report so heavily on and am seen as a news source by a fan community on My Chemical Romance (don't worry. My bias [I LOVE THAT BAND] is very clear), I am quick to correct websites that misquote them or fragment their quotes to cause a stir. I hunt them down and call them out. Not only is the reporting irresponsible, but as a leader in the fan community, I see that it is harmful to kids who read a quote that was cut in half by the singer of their favorite band to make it sound like he wants the band to break up.

If you're not convinced, even after reading the surveys by readers for class today, that content consumers are paying attention to the mess we make, perhaps you should check out this thread on the fan community forums I moderate: "These 'journalists' Shouldn't Be Paid." Ouch.

Let's show them we're not the bad guys.