It has been an interesting few days to view the combination of retraction, accusation and misinformation over stories in three American media outlets.

The most prominent involved This American Life and its January episode on the Foxconn plant in China that manufactures Apple products. The episode was based on a one-man theatrical production, but the program has lately discovered that elements of the show were more theatre than journalism.

There was a front-page column this week in the New Hampshire Eagle Times asserting that its rival, the Compass, had essentially plagiarized a sports column about a basketball game. The writer in question wasn't at the game, but liberally used material from the Eagle Times to appear to have been.

Then there was the matter of an obituary in The Oregonian of its editorial page editor. A "family friend" (actually, another editor in the newsroom) said police discovered the man in a parked car and rushed him to hospital. In fact, he died in the apartment of a woman with whom he'd been in a relationship for a year. The editor who was the source of the information was fired. She had misinformed the paper out of sympathy for the man's wife. The paper ran an extensive account of the matter later in the week, but did not note it fired the editor.

An inquiry into Australian media has concluded that a new press regulatory body is required to deal with public complaints.

The inquiry, called in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal and headed by retired judge Ray Finkelstein, offers several recommendations to deal with public trust in the press.

The inquiry concluded that existing measures are insufficient and underfinanced to deal with public concerns. Only a limited number of news media participate in such initiatives. Finkelstein recommends a binding authority that would compel apologies and corrections across all platforms. It would be independent but government

Industry response has been negative. The strongest concern has been that a government-financed body has no place in determining the fairness of journalism. It suggests industry self-regulation remains the best solution.

He did not recommend government support of the industry generally, but noted the weakness in some instances of the regional press and said the matter bears continued attention.

Two articles in recent days highlight the ethical challenges of Silicon Valley tech bloggers.

Many bloggers and their organizations separate their editorial efforts from any economic pressures involving advertisers or those they cover.

But in some instances bloggers are accepting investments in their operations and writing about those benefactors without much identifying or avoiding the conflicts involved.

In some instances bloggers are soliciting investments to create their own venture funds and writing for presumably large audiences about the companies they feature --- likely positively, and almost assuredly not before they parlay their insider knowledge into greater wealth.

The articles in the Los Angeles Times and on The Daily Beast acknowledge that blogging isn't necessarily journalism and that many bloggers are now the 21st century equivalent of the public relations firm.  But both are clear that there are conflicts galore in this new trend.

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."

The first phase of the Leveson inquiry into journalism conduct is drawing to an end, and the influential British media publication Press Gazette has created a new "manifesto" for journalists in light of what it has heard.

Its Journalists Code, designed to assist the deliberations of the inquiry, would require a signed pledge from journalists to uphold several provisions, including:

- More respect for the privacy of celebrities, but continued scrutiny of any illegality, dishonesty or hypocrisy.

-Greater transparency among news organization to deal with press inquiries about them.

-A ban on mentions of advertisers in editorial content.

-Libel reform to protect journalism in the public interest.

-A stronger Press Complaints Commission that can stipulate how corrections and rulings should be published.

-An independent commission with a majority of its non-journalist members.

-An end to unpaid internships.

-An end to copy approval by publicists and others pre-publication.

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.

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.