In today's world of race to the finish (/ bottom) journalism, I think it should be mandatory for all publications to have an addendum to each article, which contains:
* list of sources of information and original research conducted ( including names of interviewees, only anonymized with a justification, links, etc )
* a sign-off by a journalist (note: not supposed to imply responsibility or liability for accuracy of information, only that the addendum is representative of the research done)
* A hash of a archive file containing all collected information (including interview transcripts/notes, etc) with a responsibility to keep this archive for X years and to provide it to regulators on request; info can be anonymized/redacted as deemed necessary
Combine this with a fine for the publication if they failed to verify information with a reasonable effort, and it could do a lot of good for the world of news.
Of course all regulation comes with pitfalls, and there are many with this idea, especially with the fine aspect. Probably enough to make it undesirable.
But it is the only one I have to improve things.
Edit:
Since this has been mentioned: it's possible to allow anonymous sources, but eg with the rule that anonymization has to be justified and may not be abused.
But this feeds into the biggest problem with the whole idea: a fine can give regulators too much power to punish publications arbitrarily.
* list of sources of information and original research conducted ( including names of interviewees, only anonymized with a justification, links, etc )
* a sign-off by a journalist (note: not supposed to imply responsibility or liability for accuracy of information, only that the addendum is representative of the research done)
* A hash of a archive file containing all collected information (including interview transcripts/notes, etc) with a responsibility to keep this archive for X years and to provide it to regulators on request; info can be anonymized/redacted as deemed necessary
Combine this with a fine for the publication if they failed to verify information with a reasonable effort, and it could do a lot of good for the world of news.
Of course all regulation comes with pitfalls, and there are many with this idea, especially with the fine aspect. Probably enough to make it undesirable.
But it is the only one I have to improve things.
Edit:
Since this has been mentioned: it's possible to allow anonymous sources, but eg with the rule that anonymization has to be justified and may not be abused.
But this feeds into the biggest problem with the whole idea: a fine can give regulators too much power to punish publications arbitrarily.