As newspapers strive to redefine themselves as multimedia information companies, one of the challenges is to find out what users of new media expect of us. What differences are there between the public and editors in their expectations of local news online?

Last week, the Associated Press Managing Editors association offered some new information that challenged assumptions we old media editors have operated under. The organization, with researchers at University of Missouri, surveyed editors and readers on the credibility of online journalism. Some of the findings were surprising to me:

* Readers, much more so than the editors, saw benefit in allowing journalists "to join the conversation online and give their personal views."

* Readers were less concerned than editors about whether people who post online comments should use their real names.

* Readers agreed with editors that news content and advertising should be clearly differentiated. But readers were more amenable than editors to "providing convenient links from news stories to related advertising."

There were other, more reassuring findings. "Both the public and editors highly trusted the local news content online," the report said. The two groups generally agreed that attributes of good online journalism are the same as those of print: among them, verifying information, getting facts right and correcting mistakes quickly and prominently.

But the areas of disagreement between the groups raised questions. After all, we want people to use our sites. Should we cater to the readers' internet preferences and, for instance, allow journalists who cover the news to go online and express their views?

"The trend seems to be that they would find some benefit in that and it would be influential in their interest in our site and their trust in our journalism," said John Bartosek, chairman of the AP Managing Editors Credibility Committee.

Bartosek is editor of the Palm Beach Post in Florida (and a former news editor at the N&O, and a friend). He said he hasn't figured out how newsrooms could do that, without compromising the impartiality that we think readers expect, but he thinks it's worth exploring.

l l l

MOST NEWSPAPERS ALREADY ALLOW ANONYMOUS POSTING to blogs and stories on their sites, which does not elevate the level of discussion on the sites. Journalists are torn on this; we want to encourage responsible discourse, but we also want to foster a robust community forum. Bartosek said he took comfort that readers were split about evenly on anonymous posting, which means newspaper sites might be able to limit anonymity without losing too many eyeballs.

As for mixing news and advertising on the sites, Bartosek noted that readers and editors were both strongly in favor of keeping news and ads separate. But the readers were more accommodating than the editors to the idea of linking to ads from stories. "The readers who think it's beneficial are probably looking at its potential usefulness" for helping people find services and products, he said.

Dan Barkin, the N&O's senior editor in charge of online, was skeptical of the survey findings. Asking readers questions without explaining the context of, say, whether journalists should voice opinions, doesn't give them enough information to answer thoughtfully. Barkin said he didn't think any newspaper should make decisions based on the findings.

People who are accustomed to the opinionizing of cable news anchors and talk radio hosts might say they'd be interested in seeing reporters' views on a newspaper Web site, Barkin said. "But I don't think we can or should try to be both the folks who have a culture of objectivity and who also are trying to imitate the talking heads on cable, or the Ann Coulters," he said.

In the next few weeks, The N&O will have technology that allows readers to go online and comment on stories they read in the paper. The plan is to allow anonymous comments, as The N&O allows now for the paper's blogs.

I shudder at the torrents of vitriol that this will unleash, as happens already with the blogs. Comments will be screened for taste and offensiveness, but that's often in the eye of the beholder and leads to accusations of censorship. An easy cure is requiring real names.

Should newspapers link from stories to ads? That might be tempting, in a time of financial duress in the newspaper industry. But, "will people think you included a certain enterprise in the story because you sold them an ad?" Barkin asked. "I don't think that really enhances their respect for you."

Frankly, I don't understand why the AP group even asked that question. I have other concerns about the survey. For one, only 500 readers were surveyed, and only a third of those said they go to Web sites regularly for local news. That's a small slice of the market from which to draw any conclusions, much less make any decisions. As Bartosek said, the main takeaway from the study is that we need a lot more information.

You're a reader: What do you think? Should N&O reporters air their views on news? Should we continue to allow anonymous postings? Should stories link to advertising? Let me know, and I'll publish some responses.