How far should honest journalists go to obtain the best story? A deceptively complex answer would be: as far as the truth can take them. Webster's dictionary defines truth as being the "body of real things, events, and facts," in other words the collected facts and events create truth. Without delving into the philosophical difference between "truth" and "fact," it should be noted that, given the above, the facts used will alter the outcome of "truth." For example, if x is used to represent 'Fact 1,' and y, 'Fact 2,' the Webster's definition n would read as follows: things+events+x+y=truth. Assuming the variables, including x an y have the value of 1, truth would be the equal 4. If however 'Fact 2,' or y, came from a slightly different source, and thereby was valued at 0.974 instead, truth would equal 3.974. The more facts that are added to the equation, the greater the depth that will exist in the value of truth. But any inaccuracies emerging from the collection of the facts, or from within the facts themselves, will cause tremendous variations within the end value of truth. With this in mind, one begins to understand the responsibility of a journalist to be as accurate as possible when reporting events.

In his article for Deadlines & Diversity, Nicholas Russell sets out three "yardsticks" for a journalist to measure the accuracy of his story. They are: "Is my motivation a genuine desire to inform the public?" The second follows up the first question, by asking "What does this decision do the newsroom's credibility?" The final question ties the two previous questions together: "Can I comfortably confess my techniques to the audience?" The questions are simple in that they force the journalist to consider the techniques and methods he uses to present his story to the public. Though daily news reporting can be arduous, and often quite uninspiring, it is important to remember t that the reader relies on the stories that are being told. But technological trends have allowed reporters and journalist to be directly accessible to their audience. With the World Wide Web entering into the mainstream over the past year the traditional outlet for reader response—the letters to the editor—is weakening. Papers like The Globe and Mail, and many broadcasters, have given their staff publicly available email address. If this action is carried out effectively—the address are included with the stories—he journalist will become publicly accountable for his story. Knowing this will force Russell's 'yardsticks' to the forefront, as the journalist is questioned by his reader.

Another benefit of the Web could become evident in the online versions of the newspaper. The medium, through its use of hyperlinks—links to other documents not stored on the particular page—journalist will be able to put their source material online. One journalist, Stephen Pizzo, has said, "In the old days, when I wrote about a secret White House memo that I obtained…the reader had to trust that I had it and I was interpreting it correctly. Today I'm able to say, 'Hey, here it is. Look it over and come back to me for the story.' Readers are coming to expect that now. And woe be to the journalist who plays fast and loose with the facts." By offering such services, the newspapers will benefit in a number of ways. First, and foremost the newsroom's credibility would be that much more secure if the readers were able to see key documents as they wanted to and journalist were no longer just mere bylines. As readers benefit from thorough, well-documented reports by a journalists who isn't afraid to discuss their story a public trust will develop. As well as helping to secure the credibility of the newsroom, it would also be a check-and-balance system for reporters who continually fail to disclose their resources and failed to measure up to Russell's first 'yardstick.'

While the technological advances which allow more interaction between the journalist and the reader, the essential elements of honest reporting cannot be forgotten. A lazy journalist cannot wait for the readers to call his bluff, he must operate with the highest degree of honesty as possible. If even one of the 'yardsticks' were answered negatively, the intent of the story will be dishonest. In the opening it was illustrated who a small difference in a fact can alter the overall truth presented, and by failing to measure up to the 'yardstick' the truth risks becoming distorted beyond repair, as illustrated by Russell when he refereed to the Janet Cooke story. With a combination of greater public accountability—through email, and hyperlinked resources, for example—and the consistent question of a journalist's own motivations are more credible and honest media could emerge.