Gene Foreman is an exceptionally conscientious and honorable man. Like most such people I don't think he realizes just how exceptional. It is, in fact, the quality of the person, not the precision of the rules, that counts most in matters of ethics. That is what I find the following somewhat naive and ill-informed:
The common practice of allowing newspaper staffers to write unedited blogs for online readers annoys [Foreman]."I detest that," he says with understated vehemence that is as close as he comes to swearing. "I've read arguments written by intelligent people who say, 'Let's let the readers be our editors, that if we get something wrong, they call us, we check it out, and we put up a correction.' Now, this is really, really bad because harm can be done by erroneous information getting online."
Harm can also be done by erroneous information getting into print, which nowadays means, ipso facto, to be online. Wonder what he thinks of this and this and this and this and ... (The phrase "layers of editors and fact-checkers" has come to be used derisively on line.)
Which may help explain why Just 4% Trust Reporters More Than Themselves on What’s Good for America.