Yep I used the word...transparency. During last week's NewComm Forum I brought up this point to the journalism panel of J.D. Lasica, Tom Foremski, Dan Farber and Tom Abate. The questions was when will we ever see 'true' transparency among journalists?
In the wake of the Wal-Mart/Blog scandal Mike Krempasky posted something along these same lines (Mike works for Edelman and handles the Wal-Mart account). In response to the call for bloggers to be more transparent Mike said this:
Sounds great. Can’t wait to see the following:
- Traditional news publications and outlets launching websites to document all the “background conversations” they have with sources with a perspective or agenda.
- Same traditional news publications and outlets posting telephone logs involving stories they print
- PR firms posting times, dates, locations, even transcripts of ed board meetings or salon dinners.
Too many people use the word transparency when it only serves their interests and are only transparent to a degree.
You can read my previous thoughts about this topic: Transparency, How Far Do We Go?
Visitor Comments
Transparency is a fashion of the day...
Media organizations/blogs are very transparent. You can see who is advertising and you know who the blogger works for. Thus when Scoble blogs about MSFT, the monetary connection is transparent.
Do people want to peek into the pitching and story-production-process? I doubt it, it's boring but hey, if they have the time on their hands let them check it out.
I often write and speak on the topic of how news is written and how PR companies attempt to manipulate the press through many strategies. I think its useful to know how the sausage is made, and this is a form of media literacy that we should be teaching in the schools.
But I'm not sure there is much usefulness in having access to every minute of my day--who I interact with, where I ate lunch (today at Town Hall--guest of Horn Group and their clients.)
Posted by: Tom Foremski | March 10, 2006 6:06 PM
You can see a rigid application of transparency in prescription drug ads, where the company has to list all the major side effects of a product when they're promoting it. I don't think it's the best solution to disclosure about the risks, but it's better than nothing.
I agree with Tom that readers would get pretty bored with detailed descriptions of all the prep work that went into a news piece. However, I appreciate it when a journalist or a blogger indicates any major preconditions that were established for an interview, or any existing personal or business relationships that might affect how I interpret the person's comments. Do I need that information about EVERY interview the person did? Nope.
There are intricate rules in place to ensure that lobbyists must register themselves and disclose who they are actively lobbying. I don't see the need for that same amount of rigour in journalism and PR. God, just think of the paperwork!
Posted by: Eric Eggertson | March 11, 2006 12:17 PM
Lets make this simple. Who done it? ... if you read it and want to know more lets make it easy to call/phone/blog the person who wrote the copy, made the statement or invented the ad. We get transparency from people we trust and if we know who they are, it helps. If they don't answer, we can draw our own conclusions.
Dear Dr Rumsfeld ....
Now, about this sausage.....
Posted by: David Phillips | March 25, 2006 8:16 AM