Journalists are radiating angst these days, and with good reason.

A perfect storm has hit the news industry: a broken business model, loss of advertising, cancelled subscriptions, low ratings, rising costs, financial losses, a stampede to the Internet, proliferation of news sources, newsroom layoffs/buyouts, folding newspapers – and demoralized journalists.

What’s worse, many people don’t like, respect or trust journalists and media outlets anymore. They rank low in most public-opinion polls. The latest Edelman Global Trust Index found that media companies are the least trusted in this country, behind automotive, banking, energy and pharmaceutical firms.

There’s no quick fix for the woes that plague the news media – but some things could help.

One good idea was the headline of Ryan Blethen’s column (April 24) in The Seattle Times: “Make newspapers accountable.” He’s absolutely right – but the column didn’t go nearly far enough to advance that concept.

Blethen focused on ownership, noting that “Newspapers should be accountable to the communities they serve and not to Wall Street or distant corporations thousands of miles away.” Locally owned papers like The Seattle Times tend to be more accountable to the communities they serve, because they’re closer to their readers and see the impact of their work firsthand.

However, not just newspapers but all news media must be more accountable to the public if they hope to regain the credibility and trust they have clearly lost.

Newspapers, television and radio stations, neighborhood websites, news aggregators, even individual bloggers must be as transparent, accountable and open to the public as they demand of everyone they cover. And real accountability means more than paying lip service to the idea.

President Barack Obama said that a “deficit of accountability” has lowered trust of major institutions in this country, including the media. And we’re not alone. “A More Accountable Press,” a recent report from the Media Standards Trust in England, declared that current accountability systems are failing both press and public.

What I call the “TAO of Journalism – Transparency, Accountability and Openness” is part of the solution.

Whatever new forms of delivery evolve in the news business, journalists must be:

a) Transparent – People need to know more about who’s writing news, analysis and commentary. What are their backgrounds, biases, premises and prejudices? How do they decide what to cover? What are their motivations and priorities? Tell us.

b) Accountable – If journalists get it wrong, they must promptly admit mistakes, apologize for errors, invite public grievances, encourage dialogue, and explain themselves in public. In other words, they should totally follow the “Be Accountable” section of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Code (www.spj.org).

c) Open – All news media, new and old, must be more open to diverse voices in the community and invite citizens to be part of the conversation, using the vast powers of the Internet. Do they actively seek out a wide range of viewpoints and offer true diversity in race, gender, class, ethnicity and ideology? If not, they should.

Journalists demand that every other institution in society – government, business, courts, police, education, sports, the arts, academia, non-profits – be transparent, accountable and open. So why not them? Isn’t this a two-way street?

Granted, the First Amendment to the Constitution gives the press special status, free from government oversight, regulation or control. That’s a good thing. But because journalists have unique rights, they have extra responsibilities.

For decades, journalists insisted that they could – and should – be trusted. They pledged to follow their own professional standards and ethics codes. They discouraged any outside oversight, which they deemed a threat to the First Amendment. Some named in-house ombudsmen, reader representatives or public editors to hear complaints, but their number has steadily declined.

Some journalists claim they’re already responsive to the free market of both dollars and ideas. Citizens may cancel subscriptions, change the channel, phone or email reporters, write letters to the editor, call radio talk shows, or post comments on news websites. All true, and most news organizations now invite more interaction – after being pretty lousy at it in the past.

Still, as respected media critic/analyst Dan Gillmor has put it: “News is no longer a lecture, but a conversation.” Too many in the so-called “mainstream” media – big daily newspapers, television and radio stations, weekly magazines – cling to the old mantra: They know the truth, they’re here to impart it to us, and we should all be grateful. News flash: That’s not working anymore.

Encouragingly, much of the so-called “citizen journalism” being practiced today – hyperlocal websites, serious blogs, regional aggregators, online rating sites – embraces the reality of increased feedback – instant and constant. It’s also often feisty, messy and even slightly wacky – but hey, so is democracy.

The democratization – i.e., fragmentation, freedom and experimentation – in what some call the “new news ecology” – is not only inevitable, but mostly a good thing. However, many old-school journalists resist it, arguing that society still needs trained and experienced journalists (like them) to do the in-depth investigative, enterprise and narrative stories that they’ve prided themselves on for so many years – and that they can enter in journalism contests.

But some of these stories are what’s wrong with journalism. The incessant quest for Pulitzers, Emmys and countless other prizes has in too many cases led to shallow, shoddy, and shameful stories that have damaged people unfairly and hurt the credibility of the media. Just as unethical politicians and corrupt business people stain their professions and make the public cynical, so do bad, lazy, incompetent, or awards-driven journalists.

If you don’t believe that, consider the Washington News Council’s history. Founded in 1998, we’re a kind of “outside ombudsman” for the news media in this state. We consider complaints against media organizations from individuals or organizations who believe they have been damaged by inaccurate, unfair or imbalanced stories. We offer an alternative to costly litigation, sometimes through informal mediation. We are somewhere between a letter to the editor and a libel suit. The public loves this, although many journalists don’t seem to like it very much.

I travel all over the state talking about the news media to civic groups, professional associations, and high-school and college journalism students. People often ask me: Who can be trusted in the news media today? Who are the most reliable sources? Who is fair, accurate and ethical?

Unfortunately, I can’t answer them. I tell people they just have to surf around and figure it out for themselves. In the new news ecology, you have to click and choose. It takes time and effort.

Can anything help? Here are three ideas worth considering:

Certification of Journalists. Many professions are certified, so why not journalists? The big questions are: Who would do it? Under what criteria? With what enforcement mechanism? Journalists are a feisty bunch and have always resisted any kind of official licensing, which they say might lead to regulation and control. Still, this deserves exploration. (See Frank Catalano’s “The Certifiable Journalist,” TechFlash, April 18, 2009.)

Seal of Ethics. How about a self-affixed “seal of ethics” that could be posted on any news source that agrees to abide by certain professional standards? What if news providers – whether printed newspapers, broadcast stations, local websites, even individual bloggers – agreed to “stamp” themselves with this seal? If they violated their pledge, they’d have to remove the seal. Who would enforce this? Well, journalists are the watchdogs of society. Maybe they could watchdog each other, have their professional associations do it, or even ask an outside news council to help? (See Pat Thornton’s “Online Ethics Seal,” The Journalism Iconoclast, Oct. 7 and Nov. 11, 2008.)

Citizen News Councils. We’re in our 11^th year of operations and have a solid track record. Our latest innovation is a “virtual hearing,” giving members of the community a voice in holding a media organization accountable. Our latest case: a complaint by Secretary of State Sam Reed against KIRO7 Eyewitness News. We asked the public to vote on several questions and add comments as part of a Citizens Online News Council. (See www.wanewscouncil.org)

The news media are vital to democracy. We need high-quality journalism to get the news and information we need to make good decisions as citizens. We need committed journalists doing journalism that matters. But to matter, it must be trusted.

If journalists demonstrated more Transparency, Accountability and Openness (TAO) – plus a bit more humility – they might regain credibility and trust. If journalists are truly concerned about the truth, they must start by facing the truth about themselves.

John Hamer is executive director of the Washington News Council, which he co-founded in 1998. He is former associate editorial-page editor of The Seattle Times. Email address: jhamer@wanewscouncil.org. Phone: 206-262-9793.