Modul Mata Kuliah Journalisme Online - Ayo Menulis FISIP UAJY

• The Dallas Morning News' Web site reported in January 1998 that a federal employee had seen
Clinton and Lewinsky in a "compromising situation" in the White House and had agreed to testify as a
government witness. The report proved to be false, but not before it flooded the airwaves and landed
on the front pages of dozens of major newspapers. It appears the culprit here was not the online
medium but a shaky source.
• A week later The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition published allegations that a White House
steward had seen Clinton and Lewinsky alone together and had "disposed of tissues with lipstick and
other stains." The Journal published the story on its Web site without waiting for a response from the
White House. The paper defended its actions by saying other news organizations were closing in on its
exclusive. The account turned out to be false.
In his first interview on the subject of Internet reporting, Ted Koppel told me a few years ago that the
primary responsibility of journalists in any medium is to separate truth from rumor. He said: "Reporting
is not really about, `Let's see who can get the first information to the public as quickly as possible.' It
should be about `Let's see who can get the first information to the public as quickly as possible - as soon
as we have had a chance to make sure the information is accurate, to weigh it against what we know, to
put it in some sort of context.' "
There will be news sites that pay overly slavish attention to speed at the expense of accuracy. Those
sites, in my judgment, will lose out in the end.
Church and state online
While magazines, newspapers and broadcasters abide by traditions governing the separation of editorial
and advertising, and trade association guidelines establish rules for the display of ads and advertorials,
and publications have adopted standards covering conflicts of interest and the like, few such rules have
very deep roots on the Web.
The New York Times was roundly criticized by journalism academics in 1998 when it began offering a link
to barnesandnoble.com on its Web site's books pages. But my sentiments lie with the ranks of Internet
users who believe online news sites do us a disservice if they publish book reviews without offering the
ability to click and buy the book. (Of course, offering links to several commerce sites is better than
offering only one.) In recent years other online publications, such as washingtonpost.com, have entered
the e-commerce marketplace, selling goods on its Web site. All these efforts bear close scrutiny to
ensure that editorial decisions are not influenced by financial considerations, just as has long been the
case in print newsrooms.
Other news sites, such as CNET's News.com, earlier this year began running oversized ads smack in the
middle of editorial copy in an effort to induce users to click on them. Other online news sites are
expected to follow suit in the coming months. Visibility is fine; obfuscation is not. And online publishers
need to do more work to ensure that users do not become confused by the intrusion of commercial
content into the editorial space.
Sponsorships have the potential to become a trouble spot for financially struggling news sites. What
happens to your site's credibility when its Travel section is sponsored by United Airlines, its Autos
section sponsored by Honda, and its Technology section sponsored by Intel? So far, online news sites by
and large have resisted such direct conflicts of interest, but as online advertising continues to slump,
Web business managers may take a harder look at sponsorships, tiered subscriptions that wall off
premium content from non-paying readers, and other sources of income.