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.