Newspapers; What are they good for?

As a general rule, newspapers really aren't worth the effort. They offer a small selection of yesterday's news written largely by people more interested in meeting their deadlines than in producing insightful, informative articles. The news they present is, in most cases, unsupported by references to the source material and thus largely unverifiable by interested readers.

These failings are particularly prevalent in articles covering science, technology or economics, where specialist input or familiarity with the subject matter is often seen as unhelpful or downright dangerous. It seems that some papers deliberately produce misleading but exciting headlines and poorly written articles powered by glorious ignorance simply to increase their circulation.

This is, of course, entirely understandable from a commercial perspective. Nobody wants to read a boring newspaper and I suspect that people also chose papers that already reflect their own beliefs; nobody wants to be too challenged in their world views by their morning paper. Tailoring your news to satisfy your audience is therefore likely to be financially advantageous but might there not be a middle ground? Could we not find some happy compromise that allows papers to print simplistic, audience-pleasing stories that are both accurate and informative? Might it not, if we set our sights a little higher, actually be possible to shift the perspective of readers by gently nudging them towards a more liberal, caring future and away from whatever prejudices they might have been lumbered with in childhood?

Here is my (amateur) manifesto for improvement in the media:

All quoted sources should be referenced (unless they are confidential, of course) so that interested readers can dig more deeply into a subject.

• Articles, editorials, photographs, graphics and any other published item should be attributed.
• Articles should be fact-checked before they are published and background information should be linked.
• Re-printing of commercial press releases as news should be discouraged, or at least accompanied by some sort of opinion, explanation or editorial. Many press releases would, with only a modest amount of extra effort, surely provide a good starting point for stories like "Corporation pushes unproven/unnecessary product on unwary public".
• Papers should avoid articles that reinforce negative stereotypes or prejudices and should instead strive to produce texts that embody the best, rather than the worst, attitudes.
• Education is not a dirty word; giving readers information or outlooks that they might not previously have had can be a good thing.

There is evidence that these ideas (or, more likely, more sophisticated, considered versions) are already in place at some organisations. BBC News Online and the Economist both adopt these practices to some extent but other papers, like the mainstream dailies (and their online equivalents), seem to go out of their way to avoid anything that might be mistaken for sensible, responsible journalism.

If I had the money (and, frankly, if I knew anything about publishing) I might start a paper of some sort to put these ideas into practice; anyone want to start a new business with me?