Times report

I agreed with the Times report:

We strongly believe it is no longer sufficient to argue reflexively that our work speaks for itself. In today’s media environment, such a minimal response damages our credibility. Critics, competitors and partisans can too easily caricature who we are and what we do. And loyal readers gain no solid understanding of what the truth really is.

Therefore, we need to be more assertive about explaining ourselves — our decisions, our methods, our values, how we operate. We need to do this with regularity and in a variety of forums. We particularly need to do this at times when we are not under attack. But we should also be more vigorous about defending our work when it is unfairly maligned.

One thought on the recommendations, though — at my paper, we’ve had email addresses at the bottom of all our stories for a year or so now. I actually don’t get very many emails from readers. Even last week, when my Pat Robertson story was (briefly) the most-discussed story in the blogosphere, I only received a single email about it. Admittedly, we’re not the Times, but still…

Email is actually not the best medium to interact with readers, though. It’s not public. You’re not accountable. And for every person who takes the time to write, there are many others who considered it. I feel that a public comments section is more satisfying for readers … and that way reporters aren’t expected to respond to every single person, which can be time-consuming. You can deal with a bunch of concerns all at once.

I also like what Jeff Jarvis says about journalists entering into a conversation by responding to attacks. It’s pretty amazing that, say, the LA Times never responded when it was getting bashed.