It is intriguing, to say the least, to read the new Associated Press Managing Editors/Missouri School of Journalism report (here's the AP story on it) on how editors and readers each approach online journalistic standards.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, editors are more conservative and readers are looser when it comes to some of the issues involving verification, sourcing and opinionated writing. But there are challenges for conventional media inherent in the study.
The report suggests readers want a loosening of restrictions when it comes to the online conversation. They are seemingly fine with opinions --- or at least something beyond sheer stenographic reporting --- insinuated into copy.
Exactly what that is, isn't clear.
Editors themselves are more protective of their standards and on the conditions under which online journalism is created.
Now, there are some qualities that need mentioning: This is a U.S. study, where media are trusted less to begin with, so the debate about standards among editors and the audience may not be the same as in other countries. And I would suspect, too, that the audience doesn't really know all of the particulars on how journalists create and uphold standards, so those standards may on the surface seem to matter less to an audience (until something bad happens, at which time the standard matters more).