By Gary Gilson, Executive Director

Editors of mainstream news outlets have often been heard saying they want their reporters to write "with attitude." But try to find many examples of it.

Now comes David Carr of The New York Times (who used to be editor of the Twin Cities Reader), a reporter and Monday Business Page columnist who specializes in media stories, with a report this week on the choice of a new editor for The New Republic magazine, an insider named Franklin Foer.

The story exudes attitude. I say "exudes" rather than "reeks with" because I loved reading it. No matter if you care not a whit about The New Republic or if you have never heard of Franklin Foer.

For me Carr’s telling of the story IS the story. It was a straight news story, not a column, and it was a bit of a shock to read it in The Times. Here’s how it started:

"For a small outfit, The New Republic has always gone long on drama. Its changes in leadership have usually arrived in the form of rolling coups or lightning bolts from above. So it is refreshing, if a bit underwhelming, to report that Franklin Foer, a senior editor with the magazine, is quietly taking over the shop next week from the current editor, Peter Beinart . . . "

After describing the magazine’s financial losses in recent years, Carr goes on to say, "Meanwhile, its historical role as a maypole for middle-way Democrats is under challenge from countless Web sites and bloggers. And one of the magazine’s major preoccupations - a search for the soul of the Democratic Party - would seem to require a lot of patience and a miner’s helmet."

As director of the News Council I do not express opinions about the issues that come before it, and I do not participate in hearings or vote on determinations. My opinion is my own. It seems to me that people interested in journalistic standards could have a rich discussion about objectivity if they focused on a story such as Carr’s.

What I loved about Carr’s storytelling was the fact that he convinced me that he KNEW what he was talking about and he TOLD us, instead of hiding behind the journalistic convention of having to attribute every idea to some authoritative source.

The fact that David Carr is a savvy reporter and witty thinker and writer makes the reading of his story delightful, and the text does not come across to me as either gossipy or gratuitous.

The debate has gone on for years about whether news organizations should allow reporters to write what they know.

Maybe this seeming relaxation of the rules at The Times signals a sea change for that newspaper and for the news business.

Let us hear from you. What do you think about reporters telling what they know, as opposed to being restricted to telling us what others want us to know?