Arthur S. Brisbane, the public editor of The New York Times, writes this week about the value of using the news organization's website to reinforce its value with readers.

Brisbane notes how the web has deconstructed the traditional way in which content was organized, and in that new dynamic is a relationship that needs a new arrangement. He sees the website's organization as an important ingredient in that redefinition.

Among other things Brisbane says the site should have a clear place for an exchange with readers. He believes the Times newsroom and readers need this portal.

He also says the site needs an updated list of Times journalists and their areas of coverage. He notes the existing listings are not current.

The site also needs a searchable archive of ethics policies, a form to launch complaints and seek corrections, and (without a great deal of selfishness in the way he puts it) a clearer path to read the public editor's columns.

He adds: "Would a reader portal on NYTimes.com offset the centrifugal effects of the digital revolution? Certainly not. But as the model for publishing news changes rapidly, it is important to find ways to ensure that the center holds—and to fortify the core values that ultimately define how readers view The Times. The reader portal would be a concrete step in that direction."

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.