I can’t say I am surprised. Throughout much of journalism history, editors have balked at using pseudonyms, and rightly so. But readers submit online comments with made-up names. Similarly, readers favored journalists joining the online conversation and presenting their opinions way more than editors:

In the editors, 27% thought it will be beneficial to good journalism online, 58% harmful, and 15% neutral. In comparison, 50% of the public said it will be beneficial, 36% harmful, and 14% neutral.

The good news: If people are looking for local news, they visit a newspaper Web site 37 percent of the time, more than any other traditional news outlet.

Also, 75 percent of readers regard online and print news equally, 15 percent of readers (24 percent of editors) trust print more, and 10 percent of the public and 3 percent of editors trust web reports more than print.

It would be interesting to compare this to historical data, but I would bet online credibility is increasing over time.

Or is it?

The National Newspaper Association asked 22 news professionals to write about the future of newspapers. The NNA serialized it in a blog, here. Granted, I have not read every post. I’ve skimmed a few, and what seems to be the common denominator is that newspapers, if they are to survive, must adapt to changing technology and demands by the audience.

In a nutshell, if we continue to do the same thing we are going to continue to get the same results. Circulation will continue to decline. Advertising revenues will continue to go to other areas.

What does that mean for reporters and editors? We need to think of different ways to tell a story. That includes (you guessed it) audio, video and slide shows. Web technology, like cloud tags, GPS trackers, blogs and user-submitted audio, video and pictures will also be drivers to newspaper Web sites, which, in turn drives advertising dollars (and our pay checks).

I really like the post by MaryNesbitt, Three Habits of Highly Successful Editors. Those editors, she says, will exploit the strengths of new media. Newspapers (if they could even be called that) would stop publishing “earnest-but-dull journalism.” What will it take to get there?

It will take training and retraining; replacing people; hiring a different type of journalist; enlarging the definition of what a journalist does, what journalism is for and who can engage in journalism; and demanding a different kind of graduate from journalism schools.

Her other points are just as relevant to today’s struggle. Editors will finally pay attention to audience research — and put the resources where it matters most:

So successful newsroom leaders will insist on journalism that engages whatever audience they are seeking – journalism that helps them get more out of life as individuals and as members of a community; that makes them feel smarter; that gives them something to talk about with others; that looks out for their civic interests; that connects them with others; that enables participation; that surprises, touches and inspires.

We have to add value to our product and touch people’s personal lives. We cannot just write our stories and not write for the readers.

Third, she says successful editors will make enterprise reporting the norm, not the exception. It must engage the audience.

How do we engage the audience? We can go hyper local, as some have suggested, and “own” the local content. Or we can build a community of readers and contributors, as Juan Giner and Juan Señor propose in their paper, Change Now: Don’t Wait for the Future (PDF file). First off, the Juans say newspapers must first make money. With money comes independence, and with independence comes credibility. Readers and advertising come after, followed by more money. It’s all a big circle.

Engaging the audience (readers) as a community:

Web 2.0 is all about instant messaging, exchanging content, experiences and belonging. Journalism must stop being a speech and become a conversation.

Enable comments on a Web site, have reporters blog about their beats. Invite guest bloggers to talk about their topics, like parenting, hiking and politics.

Finally, I leave you with these words of wisdom:

Tomorrow’s audiences are here today. They expect audio and video-rich content. In the old days they were happy with our trusted brands telling them what happened. Today they expect to hear it and see it themselves. To not invest in giving our reporters the tools and skills they need to explore how to tell rich multimedia stories is a foolish mistake.

Thanks to Mindy McAdams for the heads up on this wonderful blog.

But how should we convey that information?

According to Northwestern University’s Readership Institute, readers want news in packaged formats that are easy to read. They also overwhelmingly want feature-style writing, according to this study. Follow the link to see the difference between inverted pyramid and feature, or narrative, writing. It engages the reader more. It tells a story rather than reports on events. This is what reporters will have to do to survive in a landscape that competes for a consumer’s attention.

Newspapers in the United States use inverted pyramid style for 69 percent of all stories, feature-style writing for 18 percent, and commentary for 12 percent. While inverted pyramid style is appropriate for most stories, nonetheless there is strong evidence that an increase in the amount of feature-style stories has wide-ranging benefits.

Unfortunately the biggest obstacle the reporter faces is his or her own editor. I face this at my job, where my editor tells me there is not always a feature in every story. He is probably right. Features tend to take more space. And the only reason they take more time to write is because most journalists were trained in the inverted pyramid style of writing. Jon Franklin, a two-time Pulitzer prizewinner, suggests in his book “Writing for Story” that once you practice the feature style it becomes second nature and it won’t take as much time.

I have used Mr. Franklin’s advice for almost a year now, and I am writing these features quicker than ever before. It just takes time and practice.