i could live with variable standards, but only if those standards are published. what would be ideal is a format that allows a reporter to explain how/why they reported a story. there would need to be some protection of sources, for example, but it would be more enlightening for all readers. and this is a point where blogs and other new technological advances could be especially helpful.
i'll create a hypothetical situation: suppose i get an independent report about the market share held by the world's largest computer manufacturers (which i do on a quarterly basis). often, the companies offer various spins and interpretations of the numbers. company x says it shipped the most units, and that best shows its hold on the market. company y says it made more in sales, and that's the real point.
so let's say i write blog entries as i'm reporting (given the proprietary nature of news, these likely would not be published until after the story is posted). my first entry mentions that i've received these numbers, perhaps with a link to the data. i then mention my plan to call companies x, y and z to get their feedback. finally, i note that i'll call the independent analyst to get his interpretation of the data. updates could provide the themes i'm seeing as they develop and change with each input, along with the on-the-record information coming in from each source.
so i put all this in a blog, or on a web page hyperlinked from the story. this, to me, provides one of the broadest disclosures of both information and process. essentially, readers could see the raw data for themselves -- but they could also see and appraise my reporting and, more important, how i filter and interpret information.
i'm kind of going at this on the fly, so bear with me if you see problems (and please point them out). but as i see it, a blog form for this would allow people to discuss their concerns and viewpoints not only on the data but on my interpretation thereof.
a few problems: 1) as nice as it would be to keep this current, so someone could point out an obvious misstep of which i'm ignorant, it wouldn't be possible under the competitive terms of journalism. 2) would i really have the time and resources as a journalist to consider each incoming criticism and judge its legitimacy, while continuing to try to track down news? 3) i still remain the final arbiter on how i present the story (blog feedback could address this issue).
the point is, i think it's becoming more important for journalists to come clean on their reporting and writing processes, especially as people become increasingly skeptical of journalists (and rightly so). unfortunately, i wouldn't expect to see that to happen anytime soon.
