Does Transparency Ruin Journalism?

The journalism industry's debate over whether transparency benefits or hinders journalism is far from coming to a resolution. Journalists, such as the New York Times' David Carr is an advocator of transparency and lists his e-mail address underneath articles for readers to directly contact him. 

While many journalists argue that transparency is beneficial and neccessary for correct journalism, others view it as a hinderance to reporters. 

Stephen Ward of PBS is of strong opinion that transparency should not be "over-hyped," otherwise it "distorts the ethics of democracy and media."

In my opinion the omission of personal bias, position, or other "revealing" facts is a greater detriment to journalism and the public than the 'over-hyping' of transparency. I do not think that one's personal bias can ever be over-hyped. In fact it does not receive enough hype. 

For Carr, articles that he has written disclosing personal investment or a stance have been labeled as "activism."  He argues that activist "has become a code word for someone who is driven by an agenda beyond seeking information on the public's behalf."

If this were the case, a large percentage of producers, editors, and journalists in corporate media outlets are activists for corporate interests. 

Corporations such as Disney are intertwined with ABC and its content, it is impossible for the station to produce content that is lacking in a strong bias for the Disney corporation. 

There needs to no longer be a double standard in the journalism industry surrounding transparency. All news outlets and reporters need to disclose their biases.