Journalists are noticeably sensitive whenever you are critical of them, even when the stories seem flimsy, arrogant or more emotional than rational. Obviously

Journalists are noticeably sensitive whenever you are critical of them, even when the stories seem flimsy, arrogant or more emotional than rational. Obviously some stories would hard to 'cite your sources' due to the stakes or secrecy, but there are many categories of stories where journos can put a partial or full source dump. Interview stories could attach full and unedited interview recordings for example. Here's a list of how journalism can do better as a profession: - Not acting defensive about criticism of journalistic practice - Attaching your raw sources - Adding an edit log to all published stories. 'Attaching the git history' would be fairly interesting to see sometimes! - Disclosing advertiser / sponsorship links and the political / religious opinions of writers as a 'writer profile'. Maybe a public journo friend list too so we could identify if certain cliques tend to have certain opinions. Also add their CV if possible to see what publications journos have written for. - Attaching to stories everyone involved in it, such as other journalists, editors, managers, politicians, executives, external pr firms, and so on. Will let you see the influence of specific people in stories. - Putting major retractions / corrections up front and center (above the fold) If you retract a story for example or have a major correction, put that retraction in the same spot where the story was most viewed. So if the story was in the bottom item in the culture section, then put the correction there. But if it was front page news, then put that correction right on the front page too.