The Post's Journalistic Rules Are Kept Hidden From Readers

The issues are numerous. What are the ethical standards for editing visual images or audio content? What rules should govern the treatment of information obtained through Twitter or social networking sites such as Facebook? What are the policies for posting user-generated content, such as photos? What are the verification guidelines for linking to non-Post material from The Post's Web site? Should there be policies covering taste online, where greater latitude is allowed in reader comments?

Some newspapers are formally tackling these questions. At the Los Angeles Times, a newsroom Standards and Practices Committee has been grappling with online issues. No similar formalized discussion has begun at The Post, perhaps because its new team of top editors has been consumed by transforming the operation while downsizing the staff in a challenging economy.

A separate question is whether The Post adheres to the policies in place. In my first two months as ombudsman, I've found a disturbing lack of attention to the standards and ethics rules.

New hires are taught about them as part of their orientation. But a surprising number of staffers told me it's been years since they reviewed them. And several said they simply don't adhere to some of the policies on confidential sources, including a requirement that "the source of anything that appears in the paper will be known to at least one editor."

Why have policies if they aren't followed?

One way to ensure adherence is to let the public see them. Readers are smart, and many are darn good at holding reporters accountable through what we in the business call "prosecutorial editing."

It takes a leap of faith to make the policies public. But a good newspaper, confident that it can meet its own high standards, should welcome the scrutiny.

Andrew Alexander can be reached at 202-334-7582 or at ombudsman@washpost.com.