The Associated Press Managing Editors, a national newspaper trade organization, released a report this week showing that readers and editors both trust what they read at newspaper Web sites.

But, interestingly, the APME poll found that readers generally are less troubled by anonymous reader comments at the end of our Web site articles. Editors are more concerned.

The APME study, done with the Donald W. Reynolds Institute for Journalism and the University of Missouri, surveyed 1,251 U.S. editors and 500 online news readers. I was among the editors surveyed.

Here's what it found:

On a scale of 1 to 7, survey participants were asked how trustworthy the information on news Web sites is. Editors answered that "trustworthiness" question with a 6.61 aggregate rating; readers offered a 5.60. Both were considered high ratings, on a scale of 7. Editors and readers trust what they read at our sites.

The survey posed a question: Do you think it is a good idea or bad idea that a Web site does not require names when people post comments (at the end of stories). There was a big split here. Sixty-four percent of editors thought that was a bad idea; 40 percent of readers did. Forty-percent of readers thought the anonymity was a GOOD idea; 20 percent of editors did.

The survey asked many other questions about good journalism. Should news Web sites always strive to verify information? Should advertising and news content be kept separate on the Web? Those kinds of things.

The answers to those questions were yes, and editors and readers felt very similarly about protecting those values and principles, which apply both to print journalism and newspaper Web sites.

Readers and editors also said reader comments that include personal attacks and profanity should be monitored and taken down, if they go too far.

Readers seemed to like it when journalists join the online discussion about stories and reporting beats. Fifty percent of all readers thought that was good; 36 percent opposed the idea. But the editors, who deal with tight resources at times and try to protect a newspaper's objectivity, felt differently. Only 22 said this was a good idea.