Transparency: Our Duty to the Public or Overkill?

Hallie Rawlinson
hr244210@ohio.edu

It's no secret that the public is not completely satisfied with news media today. As can be seen in this video by the parody news outlet The Onion, information reported on by journalists today is sometimes made a mockery and not taken seriously as a source of clear and accurate information.

Consider this Gallup Poll from September 2012 entitled, "U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High." 

Graphic courtesy of www.gallup.com

According to the poll, a new high of 60 percent of surveyed public reported having "little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly."  This is and should be a problem for journalists everywhere; but what are we to do to change the minds of some millions of critics?

This is where the idea of transparency comes into play. Some say it is the answer to all distrust of news media while others say that sharing the inner workings of a newspaper can be unfair or even dangerous. One thing is certain though: there needs to be an open discussion and some industry-wide decision making.

Considering that we as journalists are expected to be ethical as it is, there should be nothing to hide. This does not mean we need to outline our each and every move and decision. The public should be allowed to call us into question when necessary, but taking it so far as to post the particular ideologies and possible biases of each and every person involved in the production of a given publication seems extreme. Journalists are professionals who are trusted to be as detached and objective as possible while covering any and all topics. This, however can be questioned if the public feels that the reporter was not meeting this standard.

With a whirlwind of Internet backlash thrown at journalists today, it can be difficult to even weed through valid, educated responses and opinion and the whacky, attention-seeking pot stirrers. This is why the model chosen by Steven A. Smith, editor of The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Washington seems to be most effective and fair.  Smith opens news meetings to the public in order to be transparent with its audience.

"I think when people have to sit down across the table from you face to face, it creates a different kind of dynamic," Smith said to Rachel Smolkin of the American Journalism Review. "In an ironic twist, the visitors to our newsroom are less confrontational than if they were communicating by phone or email."

Smith’s method allows for transparency without some of the uneducated responses and personal attacks, which the privacy of Internet comments seems to encourage. However, it can be damaging to the publication if the writers are afraid to speak out and throw out ideas for the first time in front of the audience. In order to combat that fear, it would be more effective to allow readers to sit in on a meeting that is taking place after an initial brainstorm of the newsroom, yet before production happens. This allows editors and reporters to discuss potentially sensitive material in the privacy of the newsroom, while still letting the audience in on the production and making the integrity and hard work of the reporters visible.

There needs to be a more uniform decision among all news media to all stick to a set of standards in order to change this cheating culture norm.