A few weeks ago, I pointed you to the Time Magazine memo telling writers to buck up and start writing for the web. Now here’s another leaked memo from the print side of things – this time from the Washington Post. The major thrust of the missive is a new “10 Principles for Washington Post Journalism on the Web.” I’ve put that full list of principles “after the jump” simply because it is long — but I hope you’ll take a second and read it over. As you do, substitute “The Washington Post” for the name of your newsroom — would the statement be true?
Here is one of the most vitally important point, no matter the news site:
3. We will publish most scoops and other exclusives when they are ready, which often will be online.
Does your site publish exclusives before the newscast? If not, why not?
Ten Principles for Washington Post Journalism on the Web
1. The Washington Post is an online source of local, national and international news and information. We serve local, national and international audiences on the Web.
2. We will be prepared to publish Washington Post journalism online 24/7. Web users expect to see news as it happens. If they do not find it on our site they will go elsewhere.
3. We will publish most scoops and other exclusives when they are ready, which often will be online.
4. The originality and added value of Post journalism distinguishes us on the Web. We will emphasize enterprise, analysis, criticism and investigations in our online journalism.
5. Post journalism published online has the same value as journalism published in the newspaper. We embrace chats, blogs and multimedia presentations as contributions to our journalism.
6. Accuracy, fairness and transparency are as important online as on the printed page. Post journalism in either medium should meet those standards.
7. We recognize and support the central role of opinion, personality and reader-generated content on the Web. But reporters and editors should not express personal opinions unless they would be allowed in the newspaper, such as in criticism or columns.
8. The newsroom will respond to the rhythms of the Web as ably and responsibly as we do to the rhythms of the printed newspaper. Our deadline schedules, newsroom structures and forms of journalism will evolve to meet the possibilities of the Web.
9. Newsroom employees will receive training appropriate to their roles in producing online journalism.
10. Publishing our journalism on the Web should make us more open to change what we publish in the printed newspaper. There is no meaningful division at The Post between “old media†and “new media.â€
No related posts.
Sounded perfect until #7:
“7. We recognize and support the central role of opinion, personality and reader-generated content on the Web. But reporters and editors should not express personal opinions unless they would be allowed in the newspaper, such as in criticism or columns.”
In the end, this continued insistence that they and their reporters can produce “objective” news, that fact and opinion can be separated, and that even if they could their readers would prefer it will be the death of newspaper-generated online news. (Steve Boriss, TheFutureOfNews.com)
Sorry, Steve. Gotta disagree, and that’s maybe because I run a newspaper Web site. Objectivity and defending against bias in our reporting is why our audiences tell us they trust us. And – last time I checked – newspaper.coms far outstripped any other online source of local news, at least in the US.
…not everywhere Chris…
True.
At my former station in a less-than-wired market we broke the news online, but we held on to exclusives until the the newscast, started as directed by the GM and ND. We were a strong but distant #2, and the #1 would always jump on any news we broke on the site and then bigfoot us for the credit.
did i see a line that said they would educate ‘interested’ reporters, photographers, etc. to do the web?
every one of them better be ‘interested’ in learning or retirement.
yep, it’s there.
use the link to washingtoncitypapers that don has provided.
One thing that’s not on there, should be, but apparently it’s not there in my local paper’s rules either: a spell-checker is NOT enough! I have seen so many glaring examples of homonym confusion it’s not funny – “meat” vs. “meet” for example.
If I can’t trust you to get the words right, how do I know I can I trust you to get the news right?
Reporters often go on television and radio and offer “analysis” that they would never print in a newspaper story. Would that run afoul of item 7 if done in a web chat or blog post?
trust night global joke all