Andrew's post on media transparency

Vinti, while I agree with you that, inevitably, people will consume the kind of news they want, journalists could do a better job of explaining themselves to the public, if only to counter the media's inaccurate portrayal from conservative talkshow hosts and liberal spin doctors.

I think, as a whole, the industry does an anemic job of communicating the nuts and bolts of how something becomes news. That's where I think the "people's perceptions are off" argument becomes somewhat valid. That's where the industry becomes weakened.

Consider this: If a news organization dedicated time, even if it's only a little each month, to explanation of "behind the scenes" work -- including discussion about the reporter's information-gathering process and the debate that went along with the crafting of the story (both topics John Q. Public is largely clueless about) -- then perhaps the target audience would be more aware that we, as journalists, are often too occupied with trying to do our jobs than to have time to concern ourselves with whether we tailored our pespectives to a specific side of the political spectrum.

Sometimes, I become frustrated when people suggest the media is "biased", because this is a rather obvious, shallow statement. Of course the media is biased. We've mentioned this before. Every reporter, whether they chose to admit so or not, is shaped by his or her background. This will forever be the case. Journalism, by its nature, happens to attract people who want to "change the world." Therefore, such people, generally, will be more forward-thinking, in my opinion. Therefore, such people have a greater chance of being labeled with the "liberal" tag, even though this is an unfair assessment for the very professionals to whom I give the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps I'm naive in saying this, but I think journalists, as a whole, strive to be fair. I think, as a whole, journalists strive to be accurate. I think, as a whole, journalists don't "intentionally" slant their reporting to appease a certain viewpoint. Of course there are "extremes" (Rathergate, Jayson Blair, etc.), but it's not fair -- or intellectually accurate -- to allow unfortunate events to paint this topic with such a wide brush.

Credibility is a journalist's lone currency. If credibility becomes compromised, so does the industry. Once credibility is gone, journalism, as we know it, ceases to exist. Call me an idealist, but I tend to believe journalists can salvage their standing in the public's eye, as long as communication is improved. The future depends on it.