In his latest column for the Columbia Journalism Review, Craig Silverman offers five basic tips for the news ombudsman.

Silverman, author of Regret The Error and a fledgling expert on how news organizations can create best practices, notes the decline of the role of ombudsmen in journalism. Silverman spoke last week in Montreal at the annual Organization of News Ombudsmen conference and came away wondering how the role can be modernized.

His five basics:

1. Persist with a blog. The conference found some were using social media, but not many.
2. Curate the conversation. Silverman advocates summarizing what people are saying about stories, not just an ombudsman's work in reviewing practices.
3. Make things public. He suggests a mailbag-style posting regularly on the blog to be more of the public face of response to an organization's journalism.
4. Report like an ombudsman and journalist. Keep statistics, spot trends, report on it all.
5. Share your skills. Silverman sees this most helpful in the area of sharing how to deal with public complaints.

The sleeping giant within the cost of gathering news is the legal expense to help journalists publish with minimal risk and to defend with minimal damage. Few constituencies are more stressed than the United Kingdom, where the legal framework is challenging for journalism.

The Guardian reports today on the British Broadcasting Corporation's bills --- nearly 700,000 pounds in recent years --- simply on legal advice to deal with public complaints about its work.

Particular challenge exists to its Middle East coverage and hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent defending its programming. The BBC had to hire external experts to deal with the details of complicated complaints.

"Senior journalists grumble that the constant stream of complaints and legal challenges ties up staff in mounting a defence, often of individual news items or even single quotes; while at the same time complainants are frustrated by the slowness with which complaints are resolved," the article notes.

Internal concerns at BBC suggest the process of dealing with public complaints is cumbersome and open to abuse. The public broadcaster is examining new procedures to mitigate the problem.

In the last week public criticism has surfaced of author and journalist Mitch Albom for praising his home state's film tax credit regime while benefiting from those provisions.

The Michigan Film Tax Credit is helping finance the filming of Albom's adaptation of his Have A Little Faith bestseller. Albom was paid for the screenplay of his book.

Albom has, like many other artists, stood supportive of credits that provide incentives for film production. But his critics, including Detroit radio host Frank Beckmann, believe he cannot escape conflict of interest.

The two host radio shows on WJR-AM and exchanged extensively on the matter last week.

What do you think? Is Albom in a conflict? If so, what should he do?

The American Society of News Editors (ASNE) has issued a report on best practices involving social media in newsrooms.

It canvassed a variety of organizations (all but two of them U.S.-based) and developed a roster of items largely reflective of them. Most of these elements are in effect in most newsrooms today.

One interesting finding, and not necessarily a reflection of many newsrooms, is the recommendation that news be broken on a website, not on Twitter

The executive summary of the report identifies 10 key takeaways:

1. Traditional ethics rules still apply online.
2. Assume everything you write online will become public.
3. Use social media to engage with readers, but professionally.
4. Break news on your website, not on Twitter.
5. Beware of perceptions.
6. Independently authenticate anything found on a social networking site.
7. Always identify yourself as a journalist.
8. Social networks are tools not toys.
9. Be transparent and admit when you’re wrong online.
10. Keep internal deliberations confidential.

What do you think of its summary?

A report released today suggests Canadians continue to trust traditional sources of media.

A public opinion poll found nine in 10 Canadians found mainstream media trustworthy and reliable. It also suggests only one in four found social media similarly credible.

The survey was conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion for the Canadian Media Research Consortium, an academic organization examining journalism issues.
 
It found that about one in three young Canadians valued social media for trust and reliability and that overall Canadians were far more comfortable with professionally edited content than wiki-type refinement. Most also believed that professional media were better equipped to deal with critical issues than were citizen-based entities.

"The established news brands continue to be the gold standard for verification," the survey concluded. While younger Canadians were more optimistic about the possibilities for citizen-based media, even they registered a high degree of support for traditional sources.

A report released today by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism suggests a reconsideration by media companies of their relationship with advertisers.

The report on the digital news economics concludes that journalists don't know about their business and need to educate themselves on how it can flourish.

One interesting recommendation with ethical implications is for a changed relationship with the principal financial source for journalism: the advertiser.

"This doesn’t mean allowing them to dictate coverage or news priorities," the report says. But it does suggest a greater understanding by journalism of its audience and of the new techniques to reach and build communities.

A report of this nature is bound to challenge the traditional view that journalism ought not to obsess about the way it pays for itself but on its central mission of truth-seeking. But the authors note that there is a particular req
"We restate the bias we offered at the beginning of this report: We believe the public needs independent journalists who seek out facts, explain complex issues and present their work in compelling ways," the report concludes. "We also believe that while philanthropic or government support can help, it is ultimately up to the commercial market to provide the economic basis for journalism. The industry has realized many of the losses from the digital era. It is time to start reaping some of the benefits.

One of the world's largest newsgathering organizations has called for the release of the visual evidence of the death of Osama bin Laden. The Associated Press has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for such material and its senior editorial official has asserted journalists must be given the chance to judge for themselves whether to publish the content.

Michael Oreskes, the senior managing editor of The AP, tells The Atlantic Wire that President Obama has pledged to run a much more transparent administration. While he notes this would be a difficult decision for the president, he says it is the job of journalists to seek this material. This material is important for the historical record, he argues.

Obama appeared on CBS' 60 Minutes Sunday and said the release of such material could incite violence and incur harm. Obama said he has seen the photo and "it is him."

Since the death of bin Laden, several organizations have sought the release of the visual evidence to support the assertion he is dead and to understand more about the confrontation that led to his death.

But there is an enormous debate on the necessity to release the evidence. Some argue that it does not add any important information to the issue and only runs risk. What do you think?

In its Practical Ethics blog, the University of Oxford's philosophy faculty discusses current issues of interest --- the royal wedding, the death of Osama bin Laden, among them. In its latest post, it chronicles a discussion on whether journalism should be amoral.

By amoral, it doesn't appear to mean lacking a moral code, but journalism in which moral considerations should not apply in its practice. In short, the truth-seeking should not be commingled with a devotion to an ideology --- even, for instance, peace.

"If the objective truth happens to promote peace building, great, but if it promotes further violence, so be it as long it is the objective truth," wrote Matt Baum on the site.

The post reflects a discussion and debate at a conference on peace-building and conflict resolution on the weekend. It was conducted by the Centre for International Studies at Oxford.

One discussion examined the notion of the impartial, objective journalist in this age. Baum extends the discussion into his own post and wonders if, with the difficulty of a clear lens and the influence of money on journalism, it isn't possible to claim an amoral journalism.

Recordings from the conference will be available shortly here.

For a few weeks, the CEO of TechCrunch has been embroiled in a debate on how he ought to declare conflicts as he writes for and manages one of the leading websites on technology writing.
 
Michael Arrington has recently resumed his investments, which has drawn some criticism in the tech writing community. His policy is to declare these conflicts as they arise. His view is that declaration carries with it the necessary transparency to steer readers clear of conflicted content about which they would be unaware.

He posted recently on his investment policy and now has posted again on the fallout from the criticism. He asserts there is no such thing as objectivity and that the better policy is to declare conflicts rather than police them without the audience's understanding.

His view is increasingly shared as more experts involve themselves in journalism. They are conflicted by virtue of past involvement in companies or activities and they would prefer to continue to have associations or investments as they contribute journalism. Their solution is to declare conflicts and let the readers decide if their work can be trusted.

What are your views of how conflicts should be policed and declared in this increasingly complex time?

The Canadian Association of Journalists is weighing how (but not if) to amend its ethics code to enter the digital age. It has been nine years since the last overhaul.

The CAJ has this week released a proposed Principles for Ethical Journalism document and more detailed Ethics Guidelines, based on a three-person panel's recommendations to the association's ethics committee. It has asked for public input on the proposal.

It has created a particular series of guidelines for digital journalism, but like other organizations, the CAJ isn't seeking any differentiation on standards for digital work. Rather, it is striving for practices that reflect well on the individual and craft.

Among other things it identifies the need for accuracy, credibility and fairness to be pursued no matter if there is a need for speed. It advises efforts to make sure outside links are credible. It recommends no unpublishing of accurate content and clear corrections of inaccurate content.

The proposal will be discussed at the association's convention later this month.