Is Anybody There?   

AS IT DOES WITH MOST SPECIAL REPORTS, the Los Angeles Times put ``Orphans of Addiction" on its Web site. ``Let's discuss your thoughts and questions'' it urged readers as it launched a bulletin board debate. Despite nearly 200 postings, there were only two responses from the Times, both from electronic editors.
The site is ``more geared for users to raise questions and talk to each other,'' explains Rob Cioe, an electronic editor with latimes.com. ``We can't force reporters and editors to come onto the Web site.''
Why not? asks media critic and author Jon Katz. If newspapers really want to engage readers and win new audiences, they must move beyond a token presence on the Web, Katz argues. Newspapers ``have to get off their arrogant perch,'' he says. ``Having a Web site doesn't make you interactive. What makes you interactive is an ongoing dialogue between editors and readers.'' (See The World of Online Journalism, page 52.)
About an hour after the Times opened the forum, dozens of questions poured in. ``Isn't there some way for families like mine to `babysit' these kids for extended periods of time?'' asked Susan Breidenbach.
``Did these children have to remain in these horrific conditions until the article came out?'' asked Susan Medart.
``Why couldn't [the Times] have notified child protective services back in the summer when the article was being researched?'' asked Cathie Gentile.
``I need to know if there has been a response by social services for these kids. Will someone from the Times staff e-mail me back to discuss this?'' asked Connie Nelson.
At about 4:30 p.m., a Times electronic editor sent one of the two official responses posted. He reprinted a list that ran in the paper under the headline: ``Where to get help.'' Electronic editor Cioe also sent a message to reporter Sonia Nazario and editor Joel Sappell, ``letting them know we had an active discussion going, that it was attracting a lot of attention. We invited them to look at it.
``That's where we left it,'' he adds. ``They're free to respond or not.'' As of early February, the Web site had no messages from the Times newsroom.
``If you don't respond, it's very insulting to readers,'' argues Katz. ``Interactivity has been the toughest pill for journalists to swallow. They're taught to be disconnected from readers. It's almost a virtue not to care what people think, that if you listen to your readers, you're pandering. That's a big mistake.''
Newspapers have to realize interacting with readers is an opportunity to do better journalism, not an invitation to fraternize with the enemy, adds the longtime newspaper editor. ``How many readers would understand why you need to leave kids in peril? Most editors know ahead of time that's something tough for readers to swallow, but maybe there is a reason. I'd have the reporter and editors online, explaining what they did and why.''

Return to Intervention Dilemma