The prominent Ars Technica blog features a post by Ken Fisher on whether tech journalists have an ethical duty to "out" industry leaders.

Fisher writes as Tim Cook assumes the CEO role of Apple. Cook has not discussed his private life and that has raised speculation. Fisher points to journalists who might know but choose not to write about the matter and questions their ethics, just as he wonders about Cook's ethics for not discussing his personal matters.

The post follows one from Reuters' Felix Salmon chronicling the reaction to his post last week on the topic of Cook. Salmon argues that it is a relevant, important subject not to be ignored, and many of his readers have challenged him on that.

When he provided advice to student journalists earlier this month, Robert Niles suggested they take a course in science as a way to understand how research can be conducted.

He has elaborated on that point in a column at Online Journalism Review that identifies the need for standar procedures to gather, verify and describe.

"Today's journalism ethics are the ethics of a profession serving yesterday's information-starved communities," he writes. "Today, we need a journalistic method that serves communities seeking truth and relevance within the abundance of information surrounding them."

He suggests journalists develop their own version of scientific methods to improve their standards to move from a medium of information to a medium of the arbiter of information.

Dan Gillmor, the director of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship and a veteran journalist and blogger, argues in The Guardian that ghostwritten op-ed pieces are contributing to public cynicism about media.

Gillmor questions the ethics of news organizations that permit pieces to appear under the bylines of those who didn't create them. If they were students and attempted to present such work, they'd be given a failing grade, he notes.

Gillmor doesn't accept the argument that these pieces are no different than speech-written work. In this instance, he says, there is "an outright, direct lie." He believes news organizations should not agree to carry them and should recognize that doing so is a "sleight-of-hand" that diminishes trust.

He concludes: "If I'd flunk a student for doing it, why should I give a pass to the rich and powerful?"

In his latest post as public editor of the New York Times, Arthur Brisbane examines the value of an apology by one of the newsroom's columnists.

Last week Joe Nocera, relatively new as a columnist, wrote a spirited and sharply worded column on the Tea Party; when readers complained he had violated his own principled stand for civility, Nocera agreed and apologized.

Brisbane reflects on the "age of vitriol" now commanding media space and wonders where there are boundaries. He found people who were confounded by Nocera's move, but he concludes that it set a standard for his work in the future --- and with it, the work of the Times. All in all, he says, it was a good thing to do.

The recent New Yorker story on the plan to kill Osama bin Laden has drawn some criticism because the reporter never talked to any of the Navy SEALS who invaded the Pakistan compound and killed the Al-Qaeda leader.

The narrative technique has spurred journalistic debate about the authenticity of the account and presentation, in particular its vague attribution. One concern, not shared by all in the craft, was that the piece did not sufficiently explain to readers that the SEALS themselves were not interviewed, even though the piece said it was depending on their "recollections."

Poynter's Mallary Jean Tenore has weighed in with an article featuring narrative and ethics leaders examining the method and delivery of the story. While all believe the story was important and well-told, some indicate the standard of the piece could have been improved with some transparency. Others concluded that the piece has broadened the territory for narrative journalism.

Dan Conover's Xark blog is among the most interesting on the evolution of media, and his latest writing is on the recent debate about shifting from a journalistic model of objectivity to one of transparency.

In the FAQ-style post, he notes that people don't accept the notion of objectivity and that, besides, it hasn't worked at informing or educating all that well. A transparent model might make smaller claims to credibility, but would be on firmer and more authoritative ground, he argues.

In this new model, he suggests individuals or organizations make accessible information about their influences. They might be political or economic or social, and they might even include attitudes or a personal manifesto.

Which does not mean a writer gets to inject opinion, Conover says. Rather, the transparency about influences helps bolster credibility of the writer to let the audience know about that writer's authority.

He also argues for greater transparency in decision-making overall, including transparency about editorial choices for the public to see. While it might require transitional stress to get to the new model, he concludes it yields a superior result.

What do you think?

The ground is still fresh on defining and enforcing the legal consequences of posting or hosting contentious material on social media. Litigious parties haven't pursued many cases into the courts yet.

Poynter's Mallary Jean Tenore contributes an overview for U.S. journalists that bears reading by others, too. In it she cites the boundaries emerging in the courts on how libel can and can't be pursued.

While it is true that a libel is a libel wherever it is published, there are some protections worth noting: Third-party content can be hosted or reTweeted seemingly without consequence (although any libellous material you insert will have an impact on you).

Another variation: A news organization employee's Tweets might not be problematic for the organization if they are not work-related (the employee, of course, would have a problem).

The resurfacing of attention on media organizations paying for news has reignited a debate within the craft about such practices. But, as Jeremy Peters observes in The New York Times, the phenomenon is hardly new.

Peters reminds us of the countless cases dating back a century and featuring many of the most prominent newsmakers (Nixon, Haldeman, Simpson, Dugard, Anthony, among them), and notes the regular recurring internal questions about its ethics.

As academics observe, the one thing missing in the examination of the issue is public outcry. What is lacking is any real public passion about the practice, the analysis notes.

A new study of how U.S. business journalists use the Internet has some interesting implications for those who evaluate its impact on standards. It's clear that the journalistic use is primarily information-gathering.

The study for the Arketi Group asked business journalists (it isn't clear in the study how many) how they use the Internet. Not surprisingly, 98 per cent said they use it to read news, while 91 per cent use it for sources and ideas. Industry experts, interested parties and corporate websites are the most frequently used sources.

Slightly more than two-thirds (69%) use the Internet for social networking. Journalists are more likely to have Linkedin accounts (92%) than Facebook (85%) or Twitter (84%) accounts.

As for their own creating, a little more than half (53%) blog. Other top uses include consuming webinars, YouTube and Wikis, producing and listening to podcasts and social bookmarking.