But does this reporter counter-punch go along with the original story and company x comments? And per Google rules does the reporter get to comment on the comment (he or his publication being cited in the rebuttal)? This is about proximity. If the conversation doesn’t continue in the same place it looks like the commenter has the last word.

After I posted this and jumped in the shower … I thought more and wish I had also said …

It’s also not just up to the Times’ reporters, or other professionals to be vigilant for spin, lies and obfuscation. Bloggers are in the game, too.

And that, I think, acts as a great check on what Mr. Healey fears.

I’m still a big believer in Ken Layne’s “now we can fact check your ass.”

That doesn’t just apply to politicians and slimy journalists/pundits. It applies to corporate CEOs, too.

Mr. Healey, you may have more years in a newsroom than I, and involved more in direct news gathering than I have been in years — I don’t know, but I don’t think my credentials in that regard make me any kind of slouch or amateur either.

Still, I have great faith in the conversation.

Fact checking and truth telling is no longer a journalistic monopoly. We all get to play the game. I just think that’s a damn good thing.

Google’s comment system, however it ultimately works, is just one slice of the conversation. It will never be the whole conversation.

In another post, I see Jeff makes reference to trying to organize this conversation, but as anybody who has been in a group setting with a bunch of smart people, and maybe one or two dumb ones, there is no good way to organize this. Organization would kill it. Let the conversation be free. That, I think, serves democracy better.

In the age of distributed media, citizen media — transparency is required. Those who try to hide their vileness will usually be found out.

First, readers are smarter than most journalists give them credit for; Second, thanks to blogs and such, they’re getting smarter. The thing about the new information economy is we all have to be smarter, and that’s happening, because we’re largel…

You’re right. The ability for readers to comment on news stories will be soon be the norm, but I don’t think it adds as much value as you predict. I read sfgate.com quite a lot and it has this feature, and I can’t say it plays out anything like what you describe. It usually seems like a place for people to let of steam, make off topic statements, make insults, argue amongst each other, show their stupidity, etc. Theoretically there could be someone with enough facts and writing ability (let’s face it most average people don’t have these skills, that’s why we value trained journalists) who can build on and extend the reporter’s work, but more often than not comments come in the form of attacks on the reporter’s skill, credibility and relevance, with the assumption that the reporting system is bogus, and flawed in the first place. I don’t think the kind of facts, corrections, counterbalance and perspective you describe will be produced.