Summary¶
inferred The outlet's differentiator is being checkable, so its metrics should be ones a reader can audit rather than ones that flatter growth. The uncomfortable ones matter most: an outlet that publishes its corrections rate is harder to attack on accuracy than one that publishes only reach.
The metric set¶
| Metric | What it proves | Published? |
|---|---|---|
| Corrections issued / corrections accepted | Accuracy discipline | Yes |
| Share of stories where the subject was offered a right of reply | Fairness | Yes |
Share of claims labelled documented vs inferred vs contested |
Provenance discipline | Yes |
| Sources by type (documents, named, anonymous) | Sourcing independence | Yes |
| Subscriber-funded share of total revenue | Independence claim | Yes |
| Time from tip to publication | Whether slowness is discipline or drift | Internal |
| Staff harassment incidents and responses | Duty of care | Aggregate, annually |
Why publish the uncomfortable ones¶
documented The single most-cited reason people give for losing trust in newspapers is that they report "biased toward a particular force" (50%).2 inferred A published provenance and corrections record is the only mechanism that answers that complaint with evidence rather than assertion — and it is precisely what the outlets that the complaint targets have not done.
The risk the metrics themselves carry¶
documented Organised online harassment of journalists is a standing practice, so publishing staff-related metrics (even in aggregate) carries its own risk.3 inferred The safe default is to publish process and output metrics, and to publish staff-welfare metrics only in aggregate and annually, with staff consent.