Some qualms with an article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/02/dan-gillmor-22-rules-news

Now i'm going to tread very very lightly here. First off, this blog is my opinion, i have respect for everyone in the journalism field and this is only an exploration of my learned values and created opinions. I assume this blog will be read by absolutely no one and would gladly take this down if the writer of the article requested. So i guess this is an evaluation of the article in my eyes. If i don't mention a point, then i agree with it.

3. Telling the reader of an article what is unknown sounds like a great idea, however the last sentence bothers me. There is a large potential for this to be abused, and it sounds like it requires much more work for the reporter with little gain. Let's say a reader knows more about the story and tells the reporter. The reporter then has to decide if this new information affects the story. If it does (which would probably be rare) then the reporter must work to confirm this information. If the reporter can confirm that this new information is true and cite something confirming its validity, then the story gets updated. The story would then be recirculated (to validate the work the reporter put in and to further inform the audience) on the news website or reprinted in the next edition, be it paper or magazine. The audience then sees this updated story's headline. What are the chances the audiences still holds interest in the article?

There are many factors contributing to the audience's interest here. Number one is Timeliness. Will this new information matter to anyone now that x amount of time has passed since they first read the story? This also introduces repetition to the audience. Even if the new information significantly changes the story, will the audience still care? If they don't, the reporter just wasted his/her time working to get this new information published.

12. I'm gonna side with precedent on this one and say that anonymous sources should stay anonymous unless if stated so by the source. There is no real right answer here but i think i would do the same thing if i were in that situation.

15. In terms of competing with other news outlets, this is a self defeating idea. I wouldn't want to tell readers of someone else's when they could read my hard work. It's a very selfish thought, yes. I'm sure I'll feel differently about it when i have a comfortable job and some type of "tenure" on me.