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 Yakima Herald-Republic has decided to introduce a registration system to identify those who provide public comments on its website.

"The system we established in 2008 to foster conversations between the newspaper's readers, our website's visitors and ourselves has too often resulted in ugly, nasty or meaningless dialogue," wrote editor Bob Crider.

It has suspended its comments for the time being and will have a new system in place by July. While the news organization recognizes that not demanding registration encourages debate involvement and provides page views, it has concluded that too many are saying things they wouldn't dare if identified.

What do you think?

The sleeping giant within the cost of gathering news is the legal expense to help journalists publish with minimal risk and to defend with minimal damage. Few constituencies are more stressed than the United Kingdom, where the legal framework is challenging for journalism.

The Guardian reports today on the British Broadcasting Corporation's bills --- nearly 700,000 pounds in recent years --- simply on legal advice to deal with public complaints about its work.

Particular challenge exists to its Middle East coverage and hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent defending its programming. The BBC had to hire external experts to deal with the details of complicated complaints.

"Senior journalists grumble that the constant stream of complaints and legal challenges ties up staff in mounting a defence, often of individual news items or even single quotes; while at the same time complainants are frustrated by the slowness with which complaints are resolved," the article notes.

Internal concerns at BBC suggest the process of dealing with public complaints is cumbersome and open to abuse. The public broadcaster is examining new procedures to mitigate the problem.