The editors of Time magazine has recently made a self-criticism about journalistic failures to the content of an entire issue. Some readers thanked him for his honest opinions and insights, some wanted more courage to be honest, some criticized the blind spots in the internal display of the time editors. And some asked questions. Especially this: And now? What follows from this?

The issue itself was almost nothing to be found. Only this one tiny suggestion from the pen of Marc Brost, director of the Berlin office of the time:

Almost every newspaper has a column correction, be corrected in the misspelled name. But how do we deal with it if our attitude was wrong? If we cheered people up, then plunge? The reader should know whether our perspective changes and why. And they should recognize when we doubt and unsure. How about, for example, when would be at the end of an article which questions the author could not answer? In his New Rules of the American news media expert Dan Gillmor calls just that once Sounds strange, but might help.

Seen in the light of suggestions Gillmors from 2009 are anything but strange. They are only poorly known. Gillmor listed then 22 very concrete points, which would change or implement it, he would be the head of a newsroom.

This is his list (in his own translation and in short form):

1 We will not publish anniversary and anniversary stories more.

2 We would invite our audience to participate in the journalistic work process. We would to use the full range of interactive possibilities - from crowdsourcing to wikis.

3 Transparency is a key element of our journalism. Just one example: Every item would be accompanied by a text box with the heading "What we have not figured out." And we would invite the audience to fill these gaps in the research.

4 We would set up a news service that informs subscribers about which misperceptions are undermining us in retrospect.

5 The conversation would be an essential element of our work. As a local newspaper we would be curator and documentor of online discussions held in our region. Editorials would appear in the blog format, the same applies to readers' letters. We would encourage you to call and insist that comments are submitted in moderated forums under your real name. Comments from people with real names would verifiziertem listed first.

6 We would refuse to just shorthand and then still call it journalism. If a source is lying proven, then we would disclose - accompanied by appropriate evidence.

7 We would replace PR phrases and look for a neutral, precise language.

8 We would use hyperlinks in every possible way. Our website would offer a comprehensive list of other relevant media sources. We would link to all relevant blogs, photo streams, video channels, database services and other material - and also review this material and editorial lane. We would not consider ourselves as an oracle, but as a tour guide.

9 Our archives were fitted freely available online and Application Interfaces (APIs) to enable people to use the material for useful purposes to which we have not even thought of.

10th We would like to help to get people informed and to make media-literate users. We would show them ways in which they can acquire the necessary knowledge.

11th We would be "The ten best ..." do not publish lists of the model.

12th Only in well justified (from the source) exceptional circumstances would we do without the real name of a source in our coverage.

13th If the above source of the reasons for the anonymization of their name to be inaccurate or out lied, the source name will be published later.

14th We would "have to" banish the word from our editorials and commentaries. Phrases like "The Chancellor must now do this and that" would not formulated.

15th We would routinely refer to the work of our competitors. If we discover that you are working there on the same theme as ours, we would link to it to open to the public a broader view of things.

16th Away from this routine referencing we would go in the wake of reports on major stories of the competition. The basic rule would be: The more we desire that a history of our editorial should have been discovered (but was not), the more prominent we would draw attention to the work of the competition.

17th We would never let up, as long as a story for the local community seems to be important.

18th About every person and every issue we would offer an introductory dossier.

19th Wherever it makes sense, we would not only tell, but also formulate suggestions on how to adapt specifically to the circumstances described. Each serves a box with the words: "What you can do now."

20th We would do anything to illuminate, with the motives behind people who put words behind contributions and announced or implemented measures.

21, Risks are assessed accurately and honestly and classified. Ideally, by resorting to statistical probabilities and comparisons. An existing risk would never displayed greater than is reasonable.

22, There were no published opinion pieces by prominent politicians or managers - unless they have actually written it himself.

Certainly not meet with widespread approval in the industry all the points. Some in Gillmors list is certainly in the category of "self-evident".

And yet, his list of starting points to think about whether this is actually yet to be journalism course to be taken for granted in our own editors. And it provides suggestions on what can be changed in practice. Therein lies its true value.

What do you think? Comments are welcome - click at the end of this article simply to Comments and Reactions.