…

A bio page is transparency? It’s much more than that. The person connections are, of course, important, but the desire to be liked is also very much a fault in much of journalism today. You have to ask yourself Shawn, whether your views of the body of work would change under such wide disclosures of who the person is? Dismissal of a person/reporter can so easily be done on such trivial grounds; something as simple as “he’s a Yankee’s fan, well screw her?” can do it. It also has to be remembered that most journalists don’t get into covering issues where affiliations matter.

In many ways it’s a buy in to the idea that a journalist can’t be effective reporting on Democrats if they’re a Republican or v.v. Or pick another area of contension.

I like the idea, the theory of transparency - it’s not something Jarvis invented btw. however much he may try and persuade you otherwise - but I like more the idea of finding some place where you can just get news. That’s more important than fighting like hell as an editor and a reader to go against preconceived notions.

There’s more to be said but ….

#1: “Most Americans believe we are biased to some degree, so perhaps this transparency notion would convince them we are not.”

#2: “If they think we are biased now, revealing to them that the vast majority of us are liberal politically and either liberal Christians, or agnostics and atheists, will only cement their views further. No, we’re better off keeping things they way they are.”

Rare is the candor that we saw from liberal Andy Rooney, when he termed Dan Rather as being “transparently liberal”. If a free press desires integrity then they should adopt transparency, but I just cannot imagine the MSM in this country every going through with it.

Big deal. I feel like I’ve learned absolutely nothing about him.

A specific issue I’m thinking of here is on a local news level, financial transparency. Right now, it seems to me to be asking too much of local reporters (from here on out, when I refer to reporters, I am intentionally omitting business section employees, whom should make some level of financial disclosure) to make blanket public disclosures about finances, stocks, etc. that other local citizens would never make. Could conflicts of interest be hidden this way? Of course. However, I think at certain positions or beats, the risk is minimized to the point that asking for that disclosure might not be appropriate.

Now, I’m not completely sold on the above argument - I’m still working through it. But what is the thinking here? Does the above described line exist? Right now, I think it does.

If you agree, when do you think that partial transparency will do? One answer is “when what is being hidden is irrelevant”, but how does the person asking the question know that the hidden is irrelevant?

Your discolsure page is admirable. I wonder, though, if that level of disclosure is appopriate for all reporters. Would a sliding scale of disclosure, based upon the reporter’s beat, sensitivity of issues covered, and probably (if unfortunately) popularity work? Or, is anything less than full disclosure going to cause trouble?

Cheers.

I couldn’t think of a better endorsement FOR it.

In “Le Monde” newspaper today we can read:

“Huit français sur dix seraient gênés qu’un présentateur de journal télévisé affiche ses convictions politiques et à peu près autant (77%) qu’il affiche ses convictions religieuses, selon un sondage Ipsos/TV Hebdo publié mardi…”

That means that 80% in France would be upset by a news anchor with such transparency on politics or religion.

For more info on the poll results:
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/depeches/0,14-0,39-27438906@7-37,0.html

(in french, of course)