For traditionalist journalists, readers who voice their opinions are considered at best as useless, and at worst as generating populist rhetoric.
In practice, in a world in which no one believes in the fake objectivity of information actors and where their credibility is declining in inverse proportion to their corporatist tensions, allowing readers to comment on articles is indeed a loss of power, but one which comes automatically paired with reinforced credibility.
From playgrounds to newsroom, via parliaments of all sizes, a person who has a good command of a given topic, solid information sources, a sincere vision, and is grounded in his point of view, will neither fear debates nor flee contradictions, and won’t feel threatened by those who express opposing opinions.
In Switzerland, many media – mainly printed – are barely beginning to think along these lines. Though Edipresse dailies have enabled comments, Internet users are complaining of unwarranted censorship and deleted posts or links, despite their strictly respecting its conditions of use. 20 Minutes has a more trusting approach, offering the possibility of posting comments on all content, without triggering the menace of censorship. They are also proposing to share article links on a series of social platforms, in which users name shared information and freely enrich articles, without editors being able to modify them.
In terms of reference newspapers, Agefi and Le Temps are facing different situations. While Agefi, well appreciated by its readership for its paper version, has successfully concentrated on improving the quality of its articles, its Web site remains mediocre, and does not offer any possibility of a dialog.
As for Le Temps, it has enjoyed good Internet visibility for some time, which underwent a thorough update in January ’09, albeit without the integrated features mentioned here, except for on several specific articles. This issue has generated heavy tension within the editorial board, around the loss of power entailed by these new tools, whether explicit or not. Though it is a fact, this loss of power derives automatically from dialog: journalists and their reader-contradictors stand at level ground in the media, not considering presentation.
Having lost their position in the information elite, journalists are experiencing this change as an affront to their status, implicating what was readily accepted in the past. Yet this loss of control creates a beautiful counterpart, returning lost credibility to journalists. An advantage which could lead to a spiral of positive consequences, from renewed trust to a new concept of a journalist’s role, which would be less corporatist, less conservative, more curious and better aligned to the genuine mission of journalism in a democracy.