In his latest

PressThink post (about the Thornburgh report, of course), Jay Rosen advances a simple yet wonderful idea:

A simple example of a different approach: Sixty Minutes could publish on the Internet (as transcript and video) the full interviews from which each segment that airs is made. All interviews, every frame. Even the interviews that were not used. Producers and correspondents would instantly become more accountable for these interviews and the selections made from them. And in my view that would strengthen the journalism, make for better work; it would also be a revolution in accountability. CBS would be creating more value by publishing more source material, although it would also be more open to criticism and scrutiny.

Is it doable? I can't say I know that. But no knows until someone determined and smart tries. I believe accountability journalism, which is the kind the professionals at CBS News still want to practice, won't work any more unless the public can hold journalists themselves more accountable.

Is it doable? Hell, yes. Aside from the minor logistical issues of converting and uploading raw video footage and transcript data on a regular basis, and the again minor expense of maintaining extensive online archives (which to some extent CBS already does) I can't see how this, practically, would be a difficult matter.

It could even be profitable - publishing their raw materials would surely result in a significant increase in web traffic. More eyes means more advertising revenue. How can you go wrong?

Really, it's a win-win situation. The public gets the transparency it's so hungry for, and CBS instantly gets back some credibility, if only for displaying its willingness to be more open with the viewing public. Regaining all its credibility, of course, will be harder; that depends entirely on how responsible and scrupulous CBS proves itself to be in this new (and as yet hypothetical) atmosphere of openness.

Rosen again:

My other major reaction is that, like others, I am shocked that CBS News President Andrew Heyward still has his job. This is the reason.

As soon as the reporting of the Air National Guard story came under question, CBS had not one but two problems. The evidentiary problems with the story were one. The involvement--no, the immersion--of Dan Rather in the events thereafter was the other. Rather is the star of CBS News, the face of the brand, the personification of the news division. The anchor. Immediately it was clear that he had "bigfooted" the rest of the division and took over defense of a case in which he was accused. In effect, he was making policy for the network, as when he said that there is no investigation underway at CBS. There were huge dangers for Rather, for CBS News and for the network itself in allowing Rather to become so involved in defense of the story, which muted everyone else "under" Rather, leaving only Andrew Heyward, the boss, who did not act. He was the one who could have protected the brand and his friend, Dan Rather, by speaking truth to (star) power. The responsibility was his alone and he failed in the clutch.

Whatever happened to stopping the buck at the top? If, as Les Moonves says, "Heyward is an executive of integrity and talent", why isn't he taking responsibility for this catastrophe that happened on his watch? Whether or not Heyward fell down on the job, and it's pretty clear to me that he did, he should resign on principle. Accountability again.

But that's the whole problem, isn't it?