Perhaps we could require a simple "nutrition facts" on each article about the journal's conflicting interests: for example, a ragebait article about big tech? Then the disclosure of the ad revenue conflict between big tech and media industry must be required up front (at the beginning of the article.)
We could also require a list of the journalist's qualifications to be posted clearly at the beginning of each article. If the journalist, for instance, does not have an education in the subject, the article must be prefaced with a "journalist is not experienced or qualified in this field." This would encourage traditional journalism to end, and for journalism to become more of a mandatory consultancy with experts.
Finally, we could strengthen libel and defamation laws rather significantly. For example, in Emily Steel's article[1] about ATC, she should not have named and shamed a particular controller. Furthermore, the ATC group should be able to easily sue her for inaccuracies in her article[2] misrepresenting ATC as a whole. If you can get easily litigated, you're more likely to stick to just the facts.
Ultimately a formulaic approach will not solve this problem, it can only help a little bit by discouraging nonfactual reporting. Unfortunately, this problem fundamentally comes down to journalists as an industry thinking they're paragons of righteousness, and then going on to write horrible things.
We could also require a list of the journalist's qualifications to be posted clearly at the beginning of each article. If the journalist, for instance, does not have an education in the subject, the article must be prefaced with a "journalist is not experienced or qualified in this field." This would encourage traditional journalism to end, and for journalism to become more of a mandatory consultancy with experts.
Finally, we could strengthen libel and defamation laws rather significantly. For example, in Emily Steel's article[1] about ATC, she should not have named and shamed a particular controller. Furthermore, the ATC group should be able to easily sue her for inaccuracies in her article[2] misrepresenting ATC as a whole. If you can get easily litigated, you're more likely to stick to just the facts.
Ultimately a formulaic approach will not solve this problem, it can only help a little bit by discouraging nonfactual reporting. Unfortunately, this problem fundamentally comes down to journalists as an industry thinking they're paragons of righteousness, and then going on to write horrible things.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/02/business/air-traffic-cont...
[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/ATC/comments/175pwim/the_nyt_articl...