The ethics committee of the Canadian Association of Journalists (full disclosure: I am a former member) has produced a primer on best practices in digital accuracy.

Its scope includes a very stern opposition to unpublishing and a very strong support of transparent corrections.

The committee, led by Toronto Star public editor Kathy English, determined several best practices for the industry. Among them: helping readers report errors, transparency in corrections, prominent placement of corrections, and timeliness in the effort to correct.

The committee also reiterated the need for uniform standards across all platforms, including the discipline of verification.

A new report from the Pew Center for People and the Press suggests significant problems in public trust of the press in the United States. On nine of 12 negative indices studied since 1985, the survey of trust showed all-time marks.

That being said, the press remains more trusted as a source of information than are such other institutions as government and business.

The report found people trust their local sources of information more than they do national sources, and it suggested that the national perceptions were skewed by negative views about all-news cable television.

"Fully 66% say news stories often are inaccurate, 77% think that news organizations tend to favor one side, and 80% say news organizations are often influenced by powerful people and organizations," Pew said in summarizing the study. "As recently as four years ago, 39% said news organizations mostly get the facts straight and 53% said stories are often inaccurate."

Then again, when asked about their own news sources, Americans were far more kind. Some 62 per cent said their sources were accurate and only 30 per cent said the stories were often inaccurate.

Among the other findings in the poll of 1,501 Americans in July: television remains the prime information source; nearly one-quarter now get news from social media; people want their press to be non-political; most believe news organizations have professional intentions; equal numbers say the press helps and hurts democracy; and most support its watchdog role.

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.

Earlier today, a Twitter hoax spread that CNN host Piers Morgan had been suspended pending an investigation of his involvement in the phone-hacking scandal. Some journalists reTweeted before one journalist determined the information was untrue. (Martin Bryant of TheNextWeb chronicles the episode.)

Reuters blogger Felix Salmon says this should not be a cause for deep concern. Twitter is the "new newsroom," he writes, where people can raise rumours and have them shot down, "no harm no foul." Just as journalists pass around gossip in a newsroom, he says Twitter can serve as a similar environment.

Salmon believes that the big accounts of organizations ought to be held to higher standards. "But for the rest of us, we’re conversing on Twitter just like we converse in real life," he says.

"People are human, they believe rumours, make mistakes, jump to conclusions. Twitter is just a healthy reminder of that fact," he concludes.

What do you think?

This week, The New Yorker adds two voices to the extensive discussion on the phone-hacking scandal and its implications for journalism.

Nicholas Lemann, the dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, hopes the scandal causes journalists to reflect upon their relationship to power. No matter that important information is often brought forward by unorthodox means, "a press pass is not a moral unlimited-ride card," he writes.

Anthony Lane, one of the paper's arts writers and a former Fleet Street journalist, looks at the culture of News Corp. and its British publications in particular. It is a sharply critical and unflattering portrait, replete with many of the anecdotes in wide circulation about the Rupert Murdoch newspapers.

In recent weeks there has been a renewed public attention on the practice by some news organizations of paying news subjects for access. Most prominent was its $200,000 payment in 2008 to Casey Anthony, recently acquitted on a charge of killing her child, but there have been others.

Howard Kurtz of Newsweek/The Daily Beast reports today that ABC News has decided to discontinue the practice, principally because it worries about the impact on its credibility. The move means ABC News might be out of the competitive business for big bookings, but it believes the lost reputation is greater than any lost bookings.

The result, Kurtz says, is that ABC will not pay for photos or videos associated with the news subject.

The week ahead includes a pivotal appearance Tuesday before a British parliamentary committee of News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch and his son James, a leading executive of the company, along with Rebekah Brooks, the former News Corp. executive arrested Sunday.

In his latest blog post, media writer Ken Auletta looks at what Murdoch faces in the way of legal and regulatory challenges. He clearly believes the American consequences stand to be severe in the phone hacking scandal, even without direct activity in the U.S.

The Associated Press, the world's largest news organization, has revamped its social media guidelines.

Among other things, AP indicates:

1. It is uncomfortable with employees posting opinions on contentious issues, although it is acceptable to discuss such issues as sports or entertainment in certain circumstances and in good taste. If an employee's unit deals with the topic, opinions shouldn't be shared.

2. It is important not to assume that privacy settings guard any posted content; in other words, assume anything created will be susceptible to public consumption.

3. News should not be broken by personal social media.

4. It is acceptable to Friend sources, but employees should be cautious about Friending those whose presence might pose a reputational issue. The same goes for Liking on Facebook.

5. Bosses should not approach employees to Friend, but can accept Friend requests from employees.

6. Reporters should always take steps to verify information lifted from social media and should not simply reproduce it without such effort.

7. Reporters should have one Facebook account for both personal and professional use (several organizations suggest separate accounts).