New rules for Journalist and editors

Inspired by the below tweet. I thought what would people like to see journalist add to their rules of ethics.

Link to tweet

I'd purpose a Rand Paul rule. As every year or two especially before an election cycle. There is a puff piece about how bipartisan Rand Paul is, and he's reaching across the aisle blah blah blah. The article will toss in a few up and coming Democrats. Detailing how Democrats like Booker and Harris are working with him on the law. It will talk about how Paul is a principled Libaterain Republican, but not back it up with his virtually 100% voting record with Donny. It will hint that he may try another run and that he might be extreme but saner than Donny.

It should be mandatory that they run multiple stores in a month, six months and a year later detailing the progress or lack of action on the legislation. The follow up would also have to have the same location in the paper or broadcast.

The rule would be the case for any bills proposed by Democrats or Republicans. What So many journalists fail to do is provide any historical context. It's why I watch Rachel Maddow and Joy's show.

So, for example, the hundredth Rand Paul is working on a criminal justice article is published today 8/1/18. At the end of the piece located on page one of the papers political section. It would say read our follow up article on this legislation on 9/1/18. No matter where it is in the process they publish the follow-up story one month and in the same location.

What new rule would you guys like to see journalists take up?