Ethical transparency and neutrality issues can come up at the oddest times.
Take for instance a recent visit I took to a friend's wine bar. I had a wonderful time, great food, drinks and service but at the end was implored to "please write about us on Yelp, just don't mention you know us."
Immediately, I bristled at the request. And who wouldn't? Not that I necessarily felt my "journalistic integrity" would be compromised by a nice review on the popular social networking site (which I might have voluntarily written anyway after proclaiming I knew the owners), but I instinctively felt wrong about the deception. Even if we're all anonymous strangers on the internet, I still didn't think it would be right for me to disguise my alliance with the business.
Others didn't agree with me. Sneaking a peek at Yelp, I saw the familiar names of friends crowding Yelp with positive anonymous reviews (which the restaurant definitely earned, but solicited); in the end, I declined to review the bar. I felt that all of those positive reviews would be taken in a negative way if it was ever found out how the reviewers knew the owners.
Take for instance a recent visit I took to a friend's wine bar. I had a wonderful time, great food, drinks and service but at the end was implored to "please write about us on Yelp, just don't mention you know us."
Immediately, I bristled at the request. And who wouldn't? Not that I necessarily felt my "journalistic integrity" would be compromised by a nice review on the popular social networking site (which I might have voluntarily written anyway after proclaiming I knew the owners), but I instinctively felt wrong about the deception. Even if we're all anonymous strangers on the internet, I still didn't think it would be right for me to disguise my alliance with the business.
Others didn't agree with me. Sneaking a peek at Yelp, I saw the familiar names of friends crowding Yelp with positive anonymous reviews (which the restaurant definitely earned, but solicited); in the end, I declined to review the bar. I felt that all of those positive reviews would be taken in a negative way if it was ever found out how the reviewers knew the owners.
Overreaction? Maybe, but it felt right. Neutrality and transparency are
techniques legacy reporters and bloggers use to maintain an ounce of
credibility. Instead of writers sneakily inserting their own viewpoints
into a slanted article - often intended to form a bias on a certain
topic - transparency and neutrality help readers feel more secure in
what they are reading.
Ethical neutrality is most often linked to legacy reporting, in which reporters try to maintain distance from the topic and restrict their writing to "just the facts." This is increasingly difficult to do, given modern politics and issues and the rise in platforms such as blogging which encourage the freedom of opinion. Instead of neutrality, most bloggers looking for respect in what they write often adhere to the idea of "ethical transparency" and proclaim all of their bias up front. Instead of working under a falsity of being neutral (when in reality the site is not), bloggers would rather be up front about their viewpoints and avoid the problems of subversive writing.
A blog by the name of Occam's RazR, written by blogger Ike Piggot, created the Venn diagram at right. Although the article is more about PR and how it easily slides into new territory when its goals overlap, my main concern is with the green "transparent" circle. As a transparent writer, it is easy to turn what we write into that of just a "reviewer" or a "customer evangelist" when we allow our writing to mesh with our advocate or professional tendencies. Most don't like this thought, however, and take great lengths to separate ourselves from having ties with what we write -- or at least proclaim them up front to avoid any confusion.
Ethical neutrality and ethical transparency are similar, despite the ways they treat their respective viewpoints in a news piece. As mentioned earlier, both maintain their respectability by admitting any prejudices towards a subject or by steering clear of any prejudice at all. One doesn't happen upon Daily Kos without instantly figuring out what their political slant is. Similarly, (one hopes) that they wouldn't run into the same political bias on a newspaper such as The New York Times. But whether they have that extreme slant or not, the reader is made aware of this, and that is important. If a site such as Daily Kos began spewing pro-McCain, pro-Palin articles, most would question who's writing these articles and their intentions: suddenly, their viewpoint has changed from their original intention. As a reader, I definitely wouldn't like it and I instantly wouldn't trust them.
The ideology of ethical neutrality and ethical transparency are also similar in that they both suit their respective platforms. "[P]ress freedom is itself shared territory. It belongs equally to the amateur and the pro," says Jay Rosen in his article, "Migration Point for the Press Tribe." In the blogosphere, opinion reigns as the choice way of expression, and most bloggers won't hesitate to claim their points of view. Legacy journalism leaves little to no room for opinion, but traditionally readers appreciate an unbiased news writer that allows them to form their own opinions.
The differences between ethical neutrality and ethical transparency, however, go more into the distinctions between blogging and legacy journalism. Oftentimes, ethical transparency can still slide into becoming propaganda and slant reporting, both of which are looked down upon in traditional media. In the article "The Decline of News," Neil Henry writes, "[The] craft of reporting the news fairly and independently is very much endangered and more susceptible to political and marketing propaganda, cant and bias." Although opinion is not a bad thing, bias can often bog down a piece
and disintegrate a well-written story into 'Rah-Rah, Go Obama!'
journalism that hides any negative opinions/facts towards a subject.
On the other hand, transparency keeps readers from feeling alienated from the writer. Oftentimes, traditional news is written with such a dry hand, readers feel legacy journalism is bland and unattractive. "[Traditional reporters] are content-focused, not people-focused. After all, that's what the job's been all about for the last century or so," says writer Roy Greenslade in the article "Why Journalists Must Learn the Values of the Blogging Revolution." People are often weary of being spoken to not with, that it's easy to mistake an article as meaningless drone.
Whether by neutrality or by transparency, a journalist's best way of winning a reader's trust is to announce their intentions or stay away from intention at all. Transparency versus neutrality is always a question when writing, but to use neither would be a mistake.
But, forget all that: let me tell you about the best wine bar I've ever been to...
(Photo of Obama poster by Flickr/Steve Rhodes)
Ethical neutrality is most often linked to legacy reporting, in which reporters try to maintain distance from the topic and restrict their writing to "just the facts." This is increasingly difficult to do, given modern politics and issues and the rise in platforms such as blogging which encourage the freedom of opinion. Instead of neutrality, most bloggers looking for respect in what they write often adhere to the idea of "ethical transparency" and proclaim all of their bias up front. Instead of working under a falsity of being neutral (when in reality the site is not), bloggers would rather be up front about their viewpoints and avoid the problems of subversive writing.
A blog by the name of Occam's RazR, written by blogger Ike Piggot, created the Venn diagram at right. Although the article is more about PR and how it easily slides into new territory when its goals overlap, my main concern is with the green "transparent" circle. As a transparent writer, it is easy to turn what we write into that of just a "reviewer" or a "customer evangelist" when we allow our writing to mesh with our advocate or professional tendencies. Most don't like this thought, however, and take great lengths to separate ourselves from having ties with what we write -- or at least proclaim them up front to avoid any confusion.Ethical neutrality and ethical transparency are similar, despite the ways they treat their respective viewpoints in a news piece. As mentioned earlier, both maintain their respectability by admitting any prejudices towards a subject or by steering clear of any prejudice at all. One doesn't happen upon Daily Kos without instantly figuring out what their political slant is. Similarly, (one hopes) that they wouldn't run into the same political bias on a newspaper such as The New York Times. But whether they have that extreme slant or not, the reader is made aware of this, and that is important. If a site such as Daily Kos began spewing pro-McCain, pro-Palin articles, most would question who's writing these articles and their intentions: suddenly, their viewpoint has changed from their original intention. As a reader, I definitely wouldn't like it and I instantly wouldn't trust them.
The ideology of ethical neutrality and ethical transparency are also similar in that they both suit their respective platforms. "[P]ress freedom is itself shared territory. It belongs equally to the amateur and the pro," says Jay Rosen in his article, "Migration Point for the Press Tribe." In the blogosphere, opinion reigns as the choice way of expression, and most bloggers won't hesitate to claim their points of view. Legacy journalism leaves little to no room for opinion, but traditionally readers appreciate an unbiased news writer that allows them to form their own opinions.
The differences between ethical neutrality and ethical transparency, however, go more into the distinctions between blogging and legacy journalism. Oftentimes, ethical transparency can still slide into becoming propaganda and slant reporting, both of which are looked down upon in traditional media. In the article "The Decline of News," Neil Henry writes, "[The] craft of reporting the news fairly and independently is very much endangered and more susceptible to political and marketing propaganda, cant and bias." Although opinion is not a bad thing, bias can often bog down a piece
and disintegrate a well-written story into 'Rah-Rah, Go Obama!'
journalism that hides any negative opinions/facts towards a subject.On the other hand, transparency keeps readers from feeling alienated from the writer. Oftentimes, traditional news is written with such a dry hand, readers feel legacy journalism is bland and unattractive. "[Traditional reporters] are content-focused, not people-focused. After all, that's what the job's been all about for the last century or so," says writer Roy Greenslade in the article "Why Journalists Must Learn the Values of the Blogging Revolution." People are often weary of being spoken to not with, that it's easy to mistake an article as meaningless drone.
Whether by neutrality or by transparency, a journalist's best way of winning a reader's trust is to announce their intentions or stay away from intention at all. Transparency versus neutrality is always a question when writing, but to use neither would be a mistake.
But, forget all that: let me tell you about the best wine bar I've ever been to...
(Photo of Obama poster by Flickr/Steve Rhodes)
By ikepigott.wordpress.com
September 6, 2008 1:05 PM
Thanks for the link, Dianne.
Certainly there is room within my diagram for the professional journalist, who would occupy the "yellow" zone where transparency and professionalism intersect.
It might be more useful in studying issues of journalistic intent to choose different axes for overlap. My example was meant to look at the issue from the perspective of an insider - and all three dimensions came from a particular debate that was resonating through the blogosphere at that time.
You can pick your own dimensions for analysis - and there is no reason you can't pick more than three. (The diagrams for four or more are not as neatly symmetrical and become cumbersome, but they do exist.)
Perhaps if we changed "advocate" to "Editorial," taking it more from the perspective of traditional journalistic function. Then the "gray zone" becomes a column written by a beat reporter who discloses his ties to the subject. Likewise, the "Transparent Editorialist" who is NOT a Professional is the PTA president who writes a letter to the editor about a school issue. The Non-Transparent Editorialist is the person who writes a pro-energy letter-to-the-editor without disclosing he is an officer of a company with a stake in the outcome. Therefore, letters-to-the-editor could fit within four different sections of the Venn, determined by Transparency or Professional interest.
Venns are fun, aren't they?
By Lauren Mendoza
September 8, 2008 11:30 PM
I really liked your post! I like how you included the quote from "Why Journalists Must Learn the Values of the Blogging Revolution" that stated how traditional news can be written in an un-appealing way to readers. I guess the challenge for traditional journalists is trying to find that balance of writing in order to attract reader and trying to stay as neutral as possible. Although, I guess like Jack said in class, if the news is that interesting you won't need slang or flowery language.