Transparency is the new objectivity
Screen capture of Eye Weekly
Last week David Topping of Torontoist took Eye Weekly task for a glowing review of MTV News written by Liem Vu , who it turns out was an intern at that very program. As Topping says, “He was as much at the time the article was pitched to Eye, he was when he was conducting interviews, he was when he was writing it, and he still was when it was published.” And the article made no mention of this, which didn’t appear to be a problem for Eye.
Online editor Stuart Berman wrote to the Torontoist that he knew of the internship and added, “This wouldn’t be the first time we’ve had a story written for us by someone who’s on intimate terms with the subject they’re writing about…” For Topping, an intern writing a news article about the place where he interned is pretty intimate.
I wonder though if Topping is happy with simple disclosure. The article was updated disclosing the writer’s internship after Topping got in touch with Berman. Or I wonder if disclosure is not the issue, but rather proximity. Should journalists produce pieces on subjects or organizations they are involved with, however intimate the relationship? This summer I finally watched Capote , which follows Truman Capote as he researched and wrote In Cold Blood (the ground-breaking non-fiction novel). And I was struck by the portrayal of his relationship with Perry Smith, one of the men convicted of murder. They exchanged letters, phone calls and shared stories of their past and personal secrets. This was a fruitful relationship for Capote who was able to build a compelling tale chock-a-block with intimate details. But does this kind of intimacy taint the story? I could cite Janet Malcolm’s the Journalist and the Murderer here, but I digress.
I think for Topping his beef was also with the article’s place in the news section, which is still considered the shrine of objectivity. But objectivity has been declared a false idol. At PDF09 Dave Wineberger pronounced transparency is the new objectivity. And the journalism world breathed a sigh of relief. In our digital world, where links are the coin of the realm (Thanks Dan! ), readers can see the connections between the final draft and the ideas that shaped it. And they can decide for themselves.
“What we used to believe because we thought the author was objective we now believe because we can see through the author’s writings to the sources and values that brought her to that position. Transparency gives the reader information by which she can undo some of the unintended effects of the ever-present biases. Transparency brings us to reliability the way objectivity used to.”
My greatest worry about my major project, aside from being scooped by another journalist, was the giant caveat I must put on it.
Full disclosure: I worked at an Ontario Works office, the program I intend to report on and my project will reflect my perspective as someone who worked there.
Over the summer, I worried it like a child picking a loose scab: can I overcome this fact? Is being honest enough? Now I wax over what disclosure means. Is it how long I worked there? Summers for the past couple years. Is it exactly what my role was? I was a clerk pushing documents between clients and caseworkers. Is it the connections I have within the system? I know where to find clients and caseworkers. Or is no level of disclosure enough? Whether I have done any favours for clients or caseworkers to secure sources?
For most journalists transparency means disclosing conflicts of interest. Ryan Sholin, of Publish2 and Wired Journalists, says transparency means showing your work . It also means going further than simple conflicts of interest like mine. Showing why I know what I know and how it informed my project. So I make a commitment to not only be transparent in disclosing I worked there, but also in showing my work. You’ll see the interviews I do, the reports I read and my thoughts as I complete my project.