The Truth Behind Transparency in News

People love to hate the media.

How much depends upon many factors. Stories that appear in the news are a trigger, for sure. How they are covered is another issue. And, if one outlet covers a story but another doesn’t, news junkies rush to judgment and form the only conclusion they possibly can: In their minds, a backroom news conspiracy must have taken place.

The only time media slips out of first place on the list of things to hate is when another entity steps up to the plate and steals the title, if only for a moment. Title stealers tend to be power companies when the lights go out, mass transit when not running on time, and local governments come tax bill time.

Once the power’s back, the trains are humming, and the bills are paid, it’s back to hating on media. Some of this boils down to a person’s general outlook on life. Hey, a hater’s gonna hate, right? That doesn’t explain all of it. Nor should it.

What people want from the media and what the media gives them are two different things. In this case, the thing the people want is transparency. And this is where it gets interesting.

First, let’s toss out any media outlet that doesn’t measure up to being among the best of the breed. Forget those clickbait sites and the pay-for-plays. Life’s too short to run with the wannabes.

The case for transparency is an ongoing conversation inside the best newsrooms as editors seek ways to build and maintain trust with their audiences. True transparency is problematic for two reasons. First, the news media has a duty to protect its sources. Sources are the people who help bring issues to light, which the media then turns into headlines. But you won’t find these people named in news stories. Sometimes, sources must remain anonymous for personal or professional protection. Sometimes, they just desire privacy. If the story is done correctly, the public can’t even begin to guess how the story became a story. This is a hallmark of solid journalism. It also slaps down the whole idea of transparency, which today’s public craves.

There’s another dynamic: As much as news outlets tout objectivity as their raison d’etre, how objectivity is defined and applied is entirely subjective. This impacts everything from story choice to the angle of how a story is written. The overarching concern is, will this story appeal to the audience? See? Subjective. (And also why you never rely on one news source for your news.)

Editorial boards?—?which sometimes function separately from the newsroom, and sometimes not (see? More subjectivity.)?—?struggle with whether or not to endorse political candidates for a whole host of reasons. Some decide politics is too divisive a topic. Some believe that to serve their audience, their editorial stance should reflect their audience’s wants. Some will not endorse any candidates, feeling their choices will lead their respective audiences to question the objectivity of what the newsroom (on the other side of the invisible wall) produces.

Even the structure of how a news outlet presents the news cuts down the concept of objectivity and, thus, the ability to be transparent. Suppose the news section is meant to be the place for only objective coverage of issues and events. Why does a column comprising the reporter’s opinion on a news article that the same reporter writes appear in a news section? While a newspaper will label a column as such, broadcast outlets don’t run labels between what’s news and what’s opinion. They expect their audiences to know the difference.

So, what accounts for transparency at one news outlet doesn’t necessarily apply to any other news outlet. If any of them bothered to tell you that, that would be an actual act of transparency, wouldn’t it?

-- Jaci Clement, [email protected]

#news #media #truth #transparency