Arthur S. Brisbane caught some flak a week or so ago when he wrote about the need for fact-checking --- or as he called it, truth vigilantes --- at his news organization. Some inferred he meant the TImes needed to publish facts instead of fiction and thought it was an obvious sentiment.

But Brisbane was after something more, a form of regular challenging of assertions that often slip into stories without much thought. In some instances a countering view will "balance" that assertion. Brisbane believes that's a false balance. 

What he wants is a reality-check, or some sort of measured rebuttal, particularly as an election approaches in the United States. He agrees it can't be argumentative, but believes there is room to improve journalism standards by keeping a more vigilant watch on rhetoric.

His latest column lays out the case.

For nearly two decades of Canadian elections now, it has been evident that technology has overtaken the law in how results are permitted to be transmitted.

The Elections Act does not permit results to be broadcast in any time zone before polls have closed. The reasoning is that Canadians should not be influenced by the results from a time zone whose polls have closed and where results can be gleaned.

Of course, that was a more enforceable matter when there was not an Internet; only Canadians who were phoning across the country could share results. But once the Internet surfaced, people could email and non-Canadian sites could publish results.

Efforts were made to suppress those results and crack down on bloggers and others who transmitted results. The biggest losers were the television networks, which had to run pre-game-type programming until local polls closed, then join the national broadcast in progress. In the west, it often meant joining a telecast with an overall outcome long since resolved.

On Friday it was made clear the law will change by the next federal election. Given that there are staggered polling hours that mitigate  closing times, there shouldn't be much of an influence from east to west. And all of the technological workaround and crackdown will be a thing of the past.

An interesting touch: The federal minister who announced the change Tweeted out the announcement.

Arthur S. Brisbane, the public editor of The New York Times, posted a blog entry early today asking for input on a dilemma: Should the Times rebut assertions that aren't obviously wrong but deserve fact-checking?

The immediate response was a little wide of the mark. Many inferred he was asking if the Times should report or check facts. He had to post a second entry to clear it up.

Along the way a raft of critics used the opportunity to be a bit snippy, to say the least.

But Brisbane's point is that many assertions are made and not rebutted; they're left alone and are questionable. He wondered if it was necessary to have a "truth vigilante" around. He hopes there is enough clarity now to proceed with a discussion.

A newly released report for the Metropolitan Police in London offers some interesting guidance on how officers should be wary of the press.

The report urges police to avoiding drinking with journalists, to watch out for flirtatious reporters, to be mindful of tricks to disclose sources, to expect to be taped, and to seek lots of permission before providing much information. Bribes are possible, conniving is likely, and lying is never out of the question with the media.

The report, written by Elizabeth Filkin and commissioned by the former chief of London police before his resignation, examined the relationship between police and the media. But its most salient observations are housed in the recommendations. The police commissioner said it is necessary to be more transparent with media, but the recommendations often focus on cautious practice.

The Economist, in one of its leaders this week, argues that blogs have on balance contributed to the improvement of standards. This is not a new argument, but it is new in coming from The Economist.

The newsmagazine asserts that the blogosphere has helped readers find resources (academic papers cited in blogs are better consumed, for instance) and widened participation in discourse. 

"Admittedly, for every lost prophet there is a crank who is simply lost. Yet despite the low barriers to entry, blogs do impose some intellectual standards. Errors of fact or logic are spotted, ridiculed and corrected. Areas of disagreement are highlighted and sometimes even narrowed. Some of the best contributors do not even have blogs of their own, serving instead as referees, leaving thoughtful comments on other people’s sites and often criss-crossing party lines," The Economist notes.

As for concerns about the civility of discussion, The Economist asks: When was it ever so?

The Society of Professional Journalists has issued the first in a series of position papers on significant ethical issues for the craft. One of its first two counsels how to use the existing and venerable ethics code of the organization, but the other is more ground-gaining on political involvement.

The short-form message is: Don't. As in, run, donate, organize, campaign.
,
But the longer message in the paper, written by veteran journalist Fred Brown, is that public perception is such that a journalist has to demonstrate impartiality. Political involvement won't do that, he argues.

Brown is not impractical. He notes that objectivity isn't possible but impartiality is.

Brown, who covered politics for the Denver Post for four decades, asserts the importance of noting when publishers and proprietors weigh in to politics. As for editorial positions by newspapers, he says it's fine as long as there is a sharp and defined line between news and opinion for the public to see.

One thing he finds "unnecessarily prim": not voting. "The proof of a reporter's impartiality should be in the performance."

The new chairman of the Press Complaints Commission in Britain is examining the idea of regulating bloggers and online publication, seeking an end to the "Wild West" and imposing a "sheriff" in the process.

Lord Hunt would first invite bloggers on current affairs to voluntarily agree to regulation. They would receive a seal-of-approval rating that they would lose if complaints against them were repeately upheld.

This would take place when the commission is itself replaced with a body more independent of newspapers. Details of that transition are expected next year.

In reporting on Hunt's interview with the Exaro website (registration needed), blogger Jon Slattery said there would be a two-tier process to deal with newspaper complaints. An agreed-upon process would be created involving an independent reviewer of complaints at the papers. Complainants dissatisfied with this process would then ask the new body for a review.

The Jackson, New Jersey school board is proposing only to deal with reporters who violate the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics.

It is scheduled to discuss its proposal next week. If enacted, the board's members would be enabled to decline commenting to those it feels violates the code and request that news outlets assign different reporters to cover its activities.

The Poynter Institute reports Society of Professional Journalists has dispatched a letter indicating its displeasure with the proposal, which it said is not how its code should be used. It encouraged the board to work out its differences with reporters and noted the policy would not permit any such mediation.

The Asbury Park Press indicates the board will postpone the decision while it reviews its options. 

In his Media Decoder blog, David Carr notes a court ruling this week that has potential implications for Americans asserting themselves as journalists.

A blogger who was sued for defamation could not use Oregon's law to defend her use of material from a source --- in effect to try to shield her from the suit --- because the court ruled she was not entitled to the privileged position of mainstream media the law provides.

The court noted she was not affiliated with a media organization or entity. The law was written before blogging emerged. She has been ordered to pay $2.5 million in damages in the case.

Her defence was unusual, in that she was asserting the offending post was based on an anonymous source. She argued she deserved protection as a publisher under the law. 

While experts believe the ruling will have little effect on journalism, it will stimulate debate on the definition of a journalist in the digital age and the possible need for legal reform to reflect the new definition. 

Ten days into Britain's major inquiry into media practices, there have been several revelations and many trivialities.

Key is the sense that the phone-hacking scandal sprawls well beyond the earlier identified. What is also clear is that the public complaint mechanism in England is unable to contend with the companies it watches.

The Guardian's James Robinson summarizes the proceedings to date.