If I engage in debate with somebody, I want to be able to argue my point passionately, and to have someone else defend their point of view with equal vigour. But it is the interaction that makes such an encounter truly worthwhile.

As a journalist I imagine that it must be difficult to find the balance between writing a piece expressing personal views that you may hold very strongly (and that would probably make for more interesting reading) and being entirely balanced and dispassionate. If you do the former it is so much the better if there is opportuniy for comment and reply.

I greatly admire your committment to connecting with your audience. You seem to have found a nice little niche here Jo, so all the very best.

I will certainly keep reading…

Chris

I think print journalists who want to engage with people, who want to have a conversation with people, who respect and value other opinions can find great benefits in all this interactive malarkey.

If they can take their ‘people skills’ online then great.

But it makes my heart sink sometimes when I see online efforts resembling more like some private boys’ club - all intellectual snobbery and cliques based on what technology people favour - and insults fly at those who disagree or ‘joined the party’ too late.

It upsets me when I see ‘trusted’ commentators bemoaning the fact that a given “conversation” is over - who says?

Or they only engage in conversation with those they deem “worth” responding to - on the one hand of course that’s entirely understandable - don’t we all, in ‘real life’?

But comments left unsanswered can do a lot of damage imho - especially when the journalists/bloggers have ‘moved on’ to talk about yet another ’social media tool’ or whatever - who are they really talking to? Who’s really interested?

I have a blog about twins and triplets etc, at http://www.gotyourhandsfull.com and have now been joined by another mum, in the US, we have had some fantastic feedback and have built up (touch wood) an enthusiastic and loyal readership with minimum (okay no) resources - I think part of the reason this has happened is because we have had the confidence to be ourselves while still writing about stuff that matters to families, rather than writing about some esoteric nonsense or blathering on (too much) about personal stuff.

I’m just mentioning this as I think it underlines your point that journalists are people too, and as a means of getting people’s trust and getting their permission to tell their stories, it has worked great. I have been able to sell features off the back of the blog, I have been able to post stories I’ve already worked on and I’ve been able to post stories considered too ’specialist’ by the magazines I have written for.

best wishes

I don;t have an answer on that one either, but it should be noted that the delivery mechanism must play a part. TV is less trustworthy than radio. Where would print journalism rank on that scale? Do people see the ‘must sell papers’ as making the stories less about truth and trust than as shifting paper and earning money?

I think, reading this through today, the column is a good example of how restricted time and word-count do not a good opinion piece make.

There is a lot missing and, in true Jo style, I shall probably spend the rest of the day mentally beating myself up for a less-than-rigorous attempt at conveying an important issue. You are, after all, only as good as your last story.

I agree with Claire that social media is only one tool allowing journalists to get closer to their readers. Going out to meet them is another, but the reality in many newspapers is that this just isn’t happening as much as it should. I suspect that has got a lot to do with staffing levels and workload.

So, being realistic, web 2.0 may end up being a significant tool in the process of putting reporters back in touch with readers - a reminder that there are living, breathing people engaging with their work. I’ve watched other journalists here react to comments on blog posts or on Twitter and you can see that for many it re-invigorates them - it is a positive experience.

And we have to get back in touch with readers because if we continue to be faceless they are more likely to go search for conversations, information and enegagement elsewhere, with someone they feel they recognise and trust.

In the Ipsos MORI survey, over 60 per cent of people said they trusted TV presenters to tell the truth. Why? I imagine because they can see the person and, as a result feel more connected to them - even if they never meet them. Perhaps that’s something newspaper journalism can learn from.

You want comments *here*?

I have several thoughts upon reading this - too long to detail here. The story makes several salient points, but I feel it needs a question, or possibly a shift in focus. At the end of the story I’m left thinking that your mission to raise the status of journalism is a different project than the engagement with Web2.0. I think I’d tackle one or the other, not both. I’d deconstruct the story in other ways too, but that’s where it gets long-winded.

HTH

Now that I’m sort of sitting on another side of the fence and sometimes talking to reporters from mainstream news organisations I have one idea - reporters could just get out more and be a bit more imaginative with people. Some of them just sound like they’re calling you from a callcentre, ploughing through their tenth story of the afternoon, which probably isn’t that far from the truth - but it doesn’t do that much to help relationships if they make it pretty clear that they’ve already written the story and are just calling you to get some bland quote.

But don’t mind my ranting, I’m just jealous you got to go to SXSW

I think people who do ‘get’ social media and have experience of reading blogs understand the author much more than traditional print. The dawning new age of interactivity does carry an element of trust, after all if I take the time to follow a blog, I buy into it.

Evolution will have an effect in pond life you know…