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.

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.

One of the most challenging issues to the reputation of news organizations is how to deal with the stream of online comments, particularly those that stray from civility.

Moderation often only infuriates commenters by delaying or filtering their views and preventing real-time debates. But the absence of moderation can be a free-for-all in no one's best interest, eventually eroding the reputation of the host.

The New York Times is reworking its comments system to permit trusted readers --- those who consistently supply well-received comments --- to jump the queue and be posted publicly immediately. Others will have to await a moderator's touch. The results will be interesting to see.

What do you think of this?

About 50 journalists and educators have written The New York Times to ask that it more clearly note the conflicts of interest for its opinion-editorial contributors.
 
Their letter to the public editor does not suggest that the Times is alone in the matter, but that as the "paper of record" it can lead the way in identifying the conflicts its contributors have as they write for the organization.

In this instance they have identified Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, as an example of insufficient disclosure. Rather than note that his institute receives funds from the energy sector, the Times refers to him as a senior fellow or an energy expert.

The Times does ask its freelance contributors to answer a questionnaire on their backgrounds

Craig Silverman, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, suggested that the group behind the letter has its own possible conflicts to declare. Nevertheless, he believes that there are reasonable limits on the amount of declarations practical in media and that it is not always possible to explain every detail of one's background. Still, he does call for some standardized approach.

"We should move to standardize the way contributors are asked to disclose potential conflicts of interest and relevant related information," he wrote. "Once that information is provided, we should meet a higher standard of disclosing it to the public."

The first public editor of the New York Times was appointed by Bill Keller, until recently the executive editor, and in his new role as columnist Keller is getting a little expansive about the role and impact of the newsroom watchdog.

Keller says he hasn't always agreed with the newspaper's public editor but has come to accept that person's role as important in the operation. He likens it to proctology and notes even that can be beneficial. That being said, his enthusiasm for the role has diminished over the years, even though he recognizes the "good faith" intentions of that person.

Keller was interviewed at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum on the standards of journalism. He said the newsroom has its liberal bias on several social issues but maintains the equivalent of a legal discipline in its work.

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.