Bad for Gannett: Indianapolis Misadventure Raises Reader Trust Issue

Gannett got so much good blog vibe out of its crowdsourcing/Seven Desks plan, including my own "Good for Gannett".

Now, quickly the pendulum may be swinging back, thumping the company on the head.

It's a fairly direct issue: what's the line between unbought editorial reporting and writing and that what's bought. The issue erupted at the Indianapolis Star as it has moved to introduce its newsroom reorganization, all around embracing the web and the community. That community also includes advertisers of course, and as part of the initial plan, newsroom staffers were to help out in writing some advertiser copy.

Oops. Protests erupted. The Guild protested a contract violation. The company talked its need for speed. And we're back in the usual oh-so-last-century debate. This shouldn't be that hard. Cardinal rule number one for the digital content age: Build trust.

That means using the newfound transparency of the web to produce and deliver news, information, analysis and opinion -- and disclose clearly (link on each story/post?) who's paying for the work. Is the newspaper paying the reporter to report the news for all its readers? Is Beazer Homes paying for "advertorial" writing to show off its townhouses to their best effect? Did a mom in Shelbyville write up an "article" about disrepair at the local park?

Readers -- online or off -- want to know who wrote what and who paid then. The answer is simple: disclose.  And don't muddy the waters. In the he said/she said at the Star, it's clear how muddy the water or explanations really are. Did Editor Dennis Ryerson really expect reporters to write ad copy, or have copy editors edit it, in between stories? Or was it messed-up communication?

If Gannett really wants to make it work, pesky Guild rules or not, it should pay attention to the web and to trust. Readers can sniff it out in a quick second online, and suspicious, they click off immediately. Trust doesn't mean keeping any old lines, any old habits out of inertia. It means valuing what professional journalists do best -- reporting without fear or favor -- and adding lots to that mix. It's a game of addition, not subtraction.

Footnote: Disclosure isn't the only immediate stumbling block in the Information Centers adventure. It's well and good for an old medium to embrace new media talk, another to present itself differently. GetaNewBrowser.com does a good job here of detailing the issues of presentation -- blaring, distracting ads; limited RSS, poor video implementation -- that send a mixed message about the bold move.