The media is quick to demand “transparency” with the people and organizations it covers. In fact, that is the hot media buzzword.
As an example, a major debate today revolves around demanding government officials be completely transparent in all their dealings. The media wants details of every conversation that is made and provided to them.
Ironically, although most media organizations are multi-million dollar corporations themselves, many even complain when the government wants to charge them a fee for copying records for them.
It is kind of like that inside joke where the news media demands that individuals speak with them. However, if there is a controversy involving a media outlet you can almost be guaranteed they will refuse to comment. In fact, they often use the dreaded “No Comment” response.
But shouldn’t transparency work both ways? As an example, isn’t the news media talking out of both sides of its mouth when it demands transparency from others, but then many of its reporters don’t have to even reveal their real names?
Award-winning anchor Brian Williams was all but lynched recently by the media for “misrepresenting events” from more than a decade earlier and quickly suspended by NBC for six months. At least “Williams” is his real name.
On the other hand, it was recently announced that popular WSVN anchor Mike Marza will be leaving his position after about four years to return to Kansas City. When he was a reporter in Kansas City Marza went under the name “Marusarz.” However, it was changed to “Marza” when he joined WSVN because it was felt that name would sound better in the Miami ethnic community.
While TV folks have been playing the name game for years transparency should also be equally applied to print reporters. Don’t readers have a right to know who the real person is reporting on stories?
Why should reporters have the same basic anonymity as a nameless person spouting off views on social media? The lack of transparency by legitimate reporters puts them on the same level as Internet posters.
If a reporter is covering elections in Israel shouldn’t readers know if that person is Jewish? How about Catholic issues? If a reporter is covering riots in Ferguson, Missouri, if he/she is African American shouldn’t readers know that? If a person is writing about gay marriage do readers have a right to know if that reporter is gay?
In Journalism school it was stressed that reporters be “unbiased.” Today, bias is a way of life today in Journalism. Reporters have their own biases and feelings on issues the same as readers.
Bias begins the minute an editor assigns a reporter to a story. If a reporter is told, “Find out why that cop shot that unarmed black kid in Ferguson…” Or, it can be phrased just the opposite: “Find out when those rioters are going to quit protesting and go get real jobs…”
Based on the way the story is initially phrased the reporter pretty much knows how he/she should write it. The reporter can also easily determine the publication’s biases by its own editorials and previous stories.
Going against the accepted journalistic bias is not a good idea in an environment where layoffs have become a way of life.
Today, with the rapid rise of “advocacy” journalism readers should be aware of the background of the person writing the article. A photo of the reporter would help, but also a brief paragraph outlining his/her bio would also assist readers.
The issue of transparency should go both ways. The media cannot demand it from others, but then refuse to play by the same rules.
FAIR IS FAIR
Dear Mr. Landsberg: Good posting!! When you talk about transparency with respect to the media, I remember a famous incident in NYC in the early 1970s. In NYC this was the era of school busing, and there were a lot of stories in the media charging those opposed to busing with being racists. So, an enerprising activist wrote all of the prominent NYC journalists who were pushing this racist line and asked them where their children were in school. Uniformly they replied: “This is a private matter between me and my children.” (Translation: They are in a private school.) Now, there was a lot of racism involved in the busing issue, that I freely concede-but it is interesting that when it is their own children who are in damger of being in the spotlight journalists suddenly start demanding privacy; a privacy they never give to the children of politicians. One of the finest moment in Barack Obama’s career was when a journalist asked him about the controversy about Sarah Palin’s children: He looked at the journalist and said sharply: “Palin’s children are off limits.” I fully agree-if journalists are going to insist in privacy for their children they have no business doing stories about the children of those in public life. Sincerely, REspectfully and In Christ, Dr. Ernest Evans