Despite the fact that the Internet continues to establish its importance as a source of news, the same standards of copy editing, fact checking, and error correction that have been hallmarks of the print side of the business have largely not made the transition to the online sector, according to a survey of 665 consumer magazines by Columbia Journalism Review discussed in detail in a feature titled Tangled Web.

Among the alarming and surprising statistics unearthed by the survey:
• 59 percent of respondents either said there was no copy editing whatsoever online (11 percent), or that copy editing is less rigorous than in the print edition.
• 40 percent said that when Web editors, as opposed to print editors, are in charge of content decisions, fact-checking is less rigorous, with 17 percent saying there was no fact-checking online in that scenario.
• 54 percent said that when errors were pointed out, they were corrected on sites where the Web editor made content decisions, but without any indication to readers that there had been an error in the first place.
• Only 5 percent of respondents mentioned new or unique content as part of the reason for creating a Website, while 96 percent said they use content from their print magazines online.
• In terms of the budget, content, and look and feel of Websites, independent Web editors were in charge 11 percent, 19 percent, and 33 percent of the time, respectively.
• Despite the fact that two-thirds of respondents’ staff were expected to work on the Web at least some of the time, only 26 percent of those staffers were hired with Web experience.
• 64 percent of magazines surveyed have blogs on their Websites, with 87 percent of those hosting blogs maintained by staff members and 39 percent containing blogs written by free-lancers or contractors. One editor said of blogs that if it’s copy-edited, “it wouldn’t be a blog. We probably couldn’t afford [copy editing]. But you know, we hire [bloggers] for their skill as journalists, so it’s almost like we’re pre-editing them by who we hire. [Blogging is] more high-wire than print, where everything gets edited.”
• 73 percent of respondents allow comments to be posted on blogs or magazine content.
• Three-quarters of respondents said they use social media, with 47 percent claiming an “active presence,” and 60 percent citing Facebook and Twitter as “effective” or “very effective” for driving traffic.

From the CJR article, by Victor Navasky with Evan Lerner:

Does this mean that Web people care less about traditional journalistic standards than print people? Well, let’s put it this way: In the online world, speed is the name of the game. Web sites are interested in maximizing traffic on the theory that that’s the way to attract advertisers, and quantity often trumps quality when it comes to that. Thus, given the prevailing business model (advertising is still king), the question arises: Is online content, with its rapid turnaround requirements, held to the same standards as its print equivalents? Survey says no! We conclude that while Web people don’t always favor speed over accuracy or elegance of style, they nevertheless seem to factor speed (i.e., who is first with the news, or the controversial views, as the case may be) into the equation in a way that tends to undermine traditional journalistic standards.

What does it mean that when a Web editor is in charge of both budget and content decisions, traffic and revenue increase but quality and ethical standards decrease? (Not to mention what are the lessons to be learned from studying profitable sites where quality has not decreased?)

If it is indeed true, as the statistics about staffing seem to suggest, that most magazines don’t really take the distinction between Web and print seriously, what follows, short of making Marshall McLuhan mandatory reading? For example, if, as one respondent reported, material that has already appeared in the print magazine is never re-edited for the Web, shouldn’t that practice be revisited? On the surface it seems that one ignores the cultural consequences of the new technologies at one’s peril.