Newspaper readers agree with editors on the basics of what makes good journalism, but they are more apt to want looser rules for online conversations, a recent study on news credibility has found. For example, while newspapers highly discourage anonymous remarks, editors are more likely than readers to want that principle applied to reader comments online.

While 58 percent of editors said letting journalists join online conversations and give personal views would harm journalism, only 36 percent of the public agreed. More than 60 percent of the editors said it would be harmful to good journalism online to invite users to participate without using their real identities, compared to 45 percent of the users saying so.

The study was designed to help gauge the priorities and practices newspapers should be establishing as they increasingly blend their print and Web operations. It produced few answers on how editors can meet reader expectations online without compromising credibility.

The study did find widespread agreement on basic practices such as the need to ensure accuracy and correct mistakes. Both editors and readers overwhelmingly supported fairness in news coverage and the labeling of commentary.

Editors and readers also agreed on the desirability of depth, such as links to content published elsewhere and databases or other information visitors can explore on their own. "Many of us have come to recognize that the age of `We report it, and you read it and view it' is over," said Howard Finberg, director of interactive learning and NewsU at the Poynter Institute, a Florida think tank on journalism. "The audience has demanded much more."

In other findings, both editors and readers said any online news items produced by readers should use the same standards journalists follow when reporting and writing news stories. Editors were more likely to say it is important to include varied viewpoints in news articles and create content to attract a diversity of readers.