The story is largely accurate in its reporting of the new Ohio law allowing police departments to charge for video records. It correctly states that the law permits a charge of up to $75 per hour, capped at $750 per request. This aligns with available information on the legislation. Furthermore, the article accurately notes the concerns raised by First Amendment advocates about potential limits on public access to records. However, the claim that the law was 'scantly-debated' would require verification of the legislative process and public hearings. Additionally, while the article provides specific examples of departmental responses, the accuracy of these claims would benefit from direct citations or links to official statements or documents from the departments involved.

The article presents a balanced view by including perspectives from various law enforcement agencies across Ohio, highlighting their different approaches to the new law. It also mentions the concerns of First Amendment advocates, providing a counterpoint to the law enforcement perspective. However, the article could improve balance by including more voices from the advocacy side or legal experts who could provide deeper insights into the potential implications of the law on public access to information. The focus is predominantly on law enforcement responses, which could skew the perception of the issue towards administrative challenges rather than public rights.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the issue of the new law and its implications. The language is straightforward, making the complex topic of public records access and law enforcement policy accessible to a general audience. However, the piece could benefit from clearer explanations of some technical aspects, such as the specific processes involved in video redaction and the legal framework governing public records in Ohio. Overall, the article effectively communicates its main points without overwhelming the reader with jargon or unnecessary details.

The article relies on statements from police department representatives and a law director, which are credible sources for understanding departmental policies. However, it lacks diversity in source types, such as legal experts or public interest advocates, who could provide a broader perspective on the law's implications. The article does not cite external studies or reports that could support its claims about the law's impact on public records access. Including such sources would enhance the article's depth and credibility.

The article provides some context about the new law and its intended purpose, but it lacks transparency in explaining the methodology behind its claims. For instance, it does not detail how it gathered responses from the various police departments or whether these were official statements or informal conversations. Additionally, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that might affect its reporting. Greater transparency about the sources and methods used to gather information would improve the article's credibility.