-
Also worth noting that journalists as individuals and as a professional class do a terrible job explaining what their job is and how they do it. The internet creates a new and easy to take advantage of opportunity to increase transparency to solve this, but no bites.
-
A brief list of things that would be easy to do technically but that we don't: - list all the editors and copy editors who worked on a story - list who commissioned a story - make details about source's qualifications that are collected in a fact check clear on the story
-
- list the number of edits a story received - list the previous stories under this byline on the same topic(s) that qualify the reporter - list previous stories on which a source was used that qualify the source - clarify the revenue impact a story has.
-
- designate a non comment section contact to raise factual concerns with. - show a publication's focus on a topic by giving a count of the number of stories they've done in that topic. - designate related work off site that influenced our informed the story.
-
- show the time passed between pitch and publication. And that's just off the top of my head.
-
Worth noting that part of the reason these stats aren't made available is because, despite technology making them easy to track many publications don't. Which is even more baffling.
-
No wonder copy editors keep getting fired, right? I've never heard of even a theoretical framework being developed to understand impact of their work, much less measure it. & cross publication byline tracking, despite the increase in freelancing, this appears to mostly not exist.