One of the biggest issues plaguing print journalism with the rise of the internet is the inability for a newspaper to encourage interactive reader discussion. This usually takes place online in story comment sections or community forums. In print, this kind of audience sound-off can only take place among the few letters that are selected to print in “letters to the Editor” section.

These days, readers are talking and discussing and ranting more than ever. Even according to the 10,000 Words blog (one of my favorites), the only section that appeared twice in their post about the six Newspaper sections rendered obsolete by the web, was the Opinions section, which they say both isn’t going anywhere (“Even at their most basic form, newspapers will always contain someone’s opinion, albeit with a lot more fact-checking.”), but also serves less purpose because of comment sections.

Digging to the Opinion section means flipping through chunks of other sections to find a jumble of editorials from columnists and cartoonists and selected letters to the editor, all on different topics thrown together for the sake of keeping bias separate from fact. The story on 1A, for example, about South Florida housing becoming more affordable may or may not have a letter or opinion piece to accompany it over in the Op/Ed section, but readers are forced to go and scope it out, with or without a teaser from the story.

What if the Op/Ed section was dispersed throughout the entire paper? Each section — Nation, World, Local, Living, etc. — could have three or four pages in the back dedicated to letters and columns about the current events and issues in that section. I know some papers already do this in some form. The Miami Herald has certain columnists that are published on 1A and 1B on a weekly basis. These are usually the pieces that get readers stirring online the most as well. Comment sections for online versions of columns usually fill up pretty quickly. Some examples: Myriam Marquez, 33 comments and Linda Robertson, 148 comments .

In certain scenarios (like yesterday’s news of A-Rod’s positive steroid test), we had our column up online before it ran in print the next day. If we scooped some of the better-quality comments that were posted online and ran them beneath the story as “What others are saying,” print readers would get a taste of the buzz happening on our site. Online readers would also be compelled to write more thoughtful comments on the Web with the opportunity to get some play in print. This isn’t something that hasn’t been said before, but a stronger effort should be made to link print and the Web. Promos on the bottom of stories to “go online for a photo gallery” don’t paint a good picture of the conversation taking place about that story.

If we encourage more reader contribution to the print product, “citizen journalism” to use a cliche, it would allow more readers to talk to each other in addition to reading the static opinions of a few returning columnists.

As a more online-centric person when it comes to news, I know the argument could be made that this already occurs online in the ways that I’ve stated, so why duplicate it in print? But I think that goes against the nature of starting a conversation.

We have painted this picture of the prestige of becoming a journalist. That somehow after a few years of J-school we are granted the exclusive ability to feed information to people. In the online world, information is shared. You are not being talked AT, but rather talked to, listened to and open to a world of infinite conversation. Print newspapers should do a better job of emulating that.

I don’t want to sound naive. I fully understand the dire state of newspapers and as an online producer it is easier for me to envision a future of paperless news. But before we hammer the last nail into the coffin, what do newspapers have to lose when trying new things? It’s now or never to take some risks with the print product. I’d love any links to examples/blogs of papers who are doing this already (I doubt this is a novel idea).