The centerpiece was a weekly reader feedback session on a particular article. We went to meet readers all across our circulation area, in venues ranging from a community college campus to a lakeside restaurant.

We asked the readers to dissect the article following a discussion outline based on the ASNE research. Then we printed their comments, in their words, in the newspaper.

The forum was my weekly column, which was turned over to this purpose. It ran on Saturdays, our second-highest circulation day, and since it supplanted the column, it was in a visible place.

Readers were asked to critique specific stories.

Q: Please detail the process by which you implemented the initiative.

We started with fairly ambitious plans and had to revise them once it became clear that doing this would take more time than we had imagined.

• First. The credibility committee drafted a questionnaire, which we edited down to focus on the aspects of our work where readers see credibility problems – for example, headlines, placement of stories, who’s quoted and what perspectives are missing from the story, whether the readers came away with an impression that the reporter had a preconceived idea of the story or that the newspaper had some interest in having the story come out a particular way.
• We came up with a name. “Conversations on credibility.” We did a dress rehearsal with a volunteer group of readers. We changed the process some, the chief discovery being that people wanted the time to read or reread the story in question, because they were going to be quoted in the paper. This changed our original plan of simply going to places where people congregate and having more spontaneous conversations. Now we had to do some advance work.

“The credibility committee drafted a questionnaire, which we edited down to focus on the aspects of our work where readers see credibility problems.” – Kathy Warbelow

We solicited volunteers from the newsroom to help, beyond the credibility committee. Then we got to it. Each time, we identified the story in advance, looking for a range of stories that might represent the kinds of credibility issues readers see – biases in overcovering or undercovering certain groups, stories where some people might suspect a political agenda, etc.

The sessions were recorded, transcribed and edited. We ran the readers’ own words; they were more like quote boards than stories.

Not every session worked well. The sessions turned out to require more of the readers’ time than we had anticipated, and that made it tougher to find participants.

Q: How easily did the newsroom come aboard? How did you handle communication, motivation, and commitment?

The managaing editor's weekly column became a forum for reader comments.

There was a good response from people who wanted to volunteer for the project. Photographers, copy editors, feature editors as well as metro reporters participated.

There was some initial discomfort among some staffers about having their work dissected so publicly. Generally, people were interested in what readers had to say and receptive to the idea.

Q: Describe community outreach efforts related to the project.

Answered above.

Q: How aware were your colleagues in other newspaper departments of the credibility project?

The publisher was aware, because we talked to him about it in advance; not sure it extended much beyond that except in general terms.

78% of market residents surveyed believe the “Conversations on credibility” series can achieve the goal of ensuring that the newspaper provides its readers with a variety of different points of view, including those of particular groups or people that might be most deeply affected by a news story. 54% said the paper provides fair and balanced coverage of all social and racial groups in the area. 70% of those who don’t agree could name some group they felt didn’t get fair or balanced coverage, with the most frequent mentions being minorities or conservatives.

Q: Did the credibility initiative spark other ideas and/or changes in your newspaper? Please describe.

Doing a project helps raise awareness and really helps open up the conversation about credibility. Bringing it down to the level of specific, individual stories helped make the concept live.

Q: What were the most important lessons learned about credibility?

The biggest lesson is a simple one: We need to be accessible to our readers, to engage them in regular conversation about what we do, and accept their criticism in an open and nondefensive way.

If you do that on a continuing basis, you can even reach some of the skeptics. As a result of this project, I was invited to spend time with some fairly hard-core conservative readers who had some issues with the paper. These are the kinds of readers who might otherwise have continued to perceive the paper’s biased agendas and, perhaps, stop reading. Now they are regular e-mail correspondents.

In our focus group, people also said: We like the fact that a top editor is spending time on this issue and talking to us about it, but you don’t need to do this every week. They want to hear from top editors about why the paper does what it does, but only when the issue is substantial.

Q: What were the toughest?

It will take a long time to change in any substantial way. The reputation we have we earned over a long period of time.

Q: If you had it to do over again, what would you do better or not do at all?

There were some specific requirements for these efforts to be noticed by readers and measurable in a fairly short period of time. The ideal would be a set of initiatives that could be longer term, and thus more integrated into the daily operations of the newsroom. That’s how you get change – doing it every day.

14% of market residents were aware that the paper held editorial board meetings at various places in the community so that people could attend. 49% of market residents said they’d be interested in attending a future meeting with the editors (6% were “very interested”).

Q: How can newspapers continue to build credibility and increase public trust in the future?

Find ways to listen to readers, and not just when they call you.

Make it a daily issue, not just something that comes into play around big projects or certain topics, like political campaigns. Connect it to the quality and excellence of your journalism; this isn’t an add-on, this is at the heart of how good (or bad) we are.

Make clear that you are accountable to your readers.

Explain yourselves to readers, in small ways and large. Explain your policies on anonymous sources, naming juvenile suspects, etc. Explain why you are covering a certain event or issue the way you are. Some of the strongest feedback we got all year was from a column about why we were not playing the George W. Bush drug allegations on the front page. Dozens of responses.

What staffers say Lisa Wyatt Copy Editor “As a copy editor, there is no greater nightmare than having readers – who just happen to be teachers – talk about headline accuracy and whether they saw typos or misspellings or grammatical errors in a story you edited – in front of the managing editor and the assistant managing editor while you’re in the room. But there’s nothing better than hearing them say they didn't see any problems and getting a chance to understand how your work affects their perception of the story. It was nerve-wracking but exciting and informative.”