Two court decisions will impact how journalists report – for the better.

In January, media industry analyst and “newsonomics” blogger Ken Doctor, writing for the think tank Nieman Journalism Lab, discussed the need for journalists and publishers to breathe new life into the social contract they hold with readers. That contract goes like this: The audience holds the media accountable, and the media holds the powerful accountable. Doctor wrote about being at a place in history where people expect what he calls “values-oriented media.”

The concept, he admitted, can seem like a partisan proposition, although it doesn’t need to be. He pointed to four principles of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics to describe what those values could and should be: Seek truth and report it; minimize harm; act independently; be accountable and transparent.

“Make no mistake, it’s not the adoption of a values-based mission that’s essential,” he writes. “It is acting on these values that must now define news media.”

Seeking the truth and reporting it is the most complicated part of journalism, at the Weekly and everywhere else. Especially in the age of fake news, public officials who lie openly and a presidential administration that bars legitimate news organizations from press briefings while allowing in purveyors of alternative facts.

A pair of California court decisions have expanded the tools we have in our kit to seek the truth, but not many people are aware of them. Both of them required protracted legal battles, and both of them will fundamentally change the way news organizations report – and potentially make relationships with official sources more adversarial while forcing the government to be more transparent.

In the first case, a state appellate court ruled a police department arrest video sought by a journalist was not a personnel record – as the city claimed – and ordered that video be released. The case began in 2012 in Eureka, when a police sergeant arrested a minor who was either pushed or fell to the ground. The camera in the patrol car captured the arrest; the officer was charged with misdemeanor assault. The video was entered into evidence, although the charge was later dropped. North Coast Journal Editor Thadeus Greenson filed a California Public Records Act request for the video and ended up taking the case to court when that and another request were denied.

Greenson in February was awarded a James Madison Freedom of Information Award by the Society of Professional Journalists Northern California chapter for his efforts. The case, writes attorney Jordan Ferguson, narrows the options law enforcement agencies have to keep video footage from public disclosure.

In the second case, an environmental activist sued the city of San Jose after officials declined to turn over text message logs made from private electronic devices in response to a Public Records Act request. A Santa Clara County Superior court judge ruled in activist Ted Smith’s favor, the city then appealed and won, and Smith then appealed to the state Supreme Court.

On March 2, the court ruled when a city employee uses a personal account to communicate about public business, the writings may be subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. To qualify as a public record, it ruled, a writing must relate in a substantive way to the conduct of the public’s business.

Both rulings have deep implications for journalists, and the institutions we cover. For example, Weekly Editor Sara Rubin filed a public records request for the body cam footage in the fatal police shooting of 16-year-old Marlon Joel Rodas-Sanchez. The Jan. 18 incident is being investigated, and Rubin’s request was denied – she was told that body cam footage wasn’t subject to the PRA. The Eureka ruling may force disclosure once the investigation is complete. And I don’t think anyone on staff (at least not during my six years as editor) requested texts sent on private devices of public officials, but given the City Council battles going on (in Monterey, over wharf leasing, and in Salinas, over sanctuary city resolutions) it makes one wonder what’s possible.

As Ted Smith told the Los Angeles Times, in quoting Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “Sunshine is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

MARY DUAN writes The Local Spin for the Weekly. Reach her at mary@mcweekly.com