Nov 1 2011: How do you think that should be presented? Should sponsors be listed at the end of a news program, like the list of side-effects at the end of a pharmaceutical commercial?
Oct 30 2011: Can media ever be too transparent? If we want 'objective' journalism, shouldn't every aspect of news be completely open to scrutiny, including sources, editorial direction and the editing process?
Oct 30 2011: Interesting ideas, it'd be interesting to see how applicable they might be in day-to-day journalism.
As for the question of journalist opinions, this is something over which I'm torn.
Personally I find the attempt to divorce opinion from journalists as worrisome. Not that it's not possible, but the air of objectivity has to be deserved. And a lot of journalists don't deserve that air.
It can be placed on a piece with some creative editing, like you pointed out. Only, how do you find out if someone has tainted their piece or not?
Personally I like opinionated journalists. Journalists use their instincts to understand stories, find issues and to present those issues. It's hard to separate opinion from the story, especially if it's something new, and without a lot of debate surrounding it. Maybe all journalists should be clearly opinionated; at least that way we'll know where this story is coming from.
That, to a certain extent, is transparency. News would also be more interesting.
Oct 30 2011: I agree with removing ads. But the problem then becomes a battle between content and and financing. You can only produce a certain quality content with a certain amount of money.
I read a book, Death and Life of American Journalism by Nichols and McChesney, and they suggested that the government should pay up to 45,000 dollars of a journalist's salary. I'd agree with them, but only because there's no other way of financing this difficult business and still producing quality content.
Oct 29 2011: Though I agree to a certain extent, I think you underestimate the power of mass media.
Particularly, I think you overestimate people's desire to participate in social media. Social media is easy, and people like that. But mass media is easy too, and packages information much more neatly than social media.
You can go on Twitter and Facebook and follow an interesting story, or you can have the story packaged and told to you by a documentary or by the news. I think social media is an important way people get news, but I don't know if mass media can be entirely usurped. Mass media is still easier than social media in many respects. It still has a place at the dinner table.
On top of the fact that people might still be interested in mass media, the structures for regular publication of information don't exist in social media yet. People of all kinds depend on regular updates on stock markets, updates on sports, updates on municipal politicians etc.
The resources for this don't exist in social media yet. Regularily updating sports information, or regularly updating information about a city-hall by-laws can't be effectively done by social media.
Not to mention investigative reporting, which is a time-sink and an even worse money-sink.
Do you really think random people will be able to coalesc into efficient, and free, media producers?
A better analogy might be social media as a healthy horse, and mass media as train.
Sure, the horse can take you anywhere, but sometimes you just want to get on, fall asleep, and wake up where you needed to go.
Oct 28 2011: It's easy to say "I don't want personal opinions", but what is news? It's a journalist/editor deciding what is important to their readership.
Simply choosing what is news and what isn't, is a political opinion. It doesn't even have to be conscious. If a reporter has someone in their family with a disability they are more likely to address disabled issues, because they understand the language and issues surrounding disability. You're getting that reporters point of view, their political opinion.
I like your suggestions about a round-table. But that has time constraints. How do you find a doctor, a nutritionist, a dietician and a research assistant for the 6 oclock news? Or for every 6 oclock news?
Oct 28 2011: I think it's silly to bash news for being too flashy. It has to do what it has to do, but it can be intelligent and thoughtful at the same time.
To say news should go back to being more serious, is like saying that you preferred the horse-and-carriage to the car. Maybe you liked the horses companionship, and found it a more intimate mode of transportation, but a horse-and-carriage is untenable on our roads and highways.
News needs to find a middle ground in all this. It needs to be exciting and interesting, but it also has to be real and challenging.
And the 'flashy' strategies aren't necessarily a bad thing. Tough questions from partisan right-wing media can evoke issues and questions that left-wing media wouldn't evoke. And vice-versa.
As for Scott's comment that news is just entertainment, I'd fundamentally disagree. News has political implications - implications into people's every day lives. The current news system isn't the best example, but it certainly has its moments of impact: it can force a politician to quit, or expose a harmful drug to the public.
Whenever someone is trying to pass something off as 'fact' - or even a point of view - then we need transparency.
TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: What is the importance of building transparency in news media, and what would like to see? Any risks?
A comment on Conversation: What is the importance of building transparency in news media, and what would like to see? Any risks?
A reply on Conversation: What is the importance of building transparency in news media, and what would like to see? Any risks?
As for the question of journalist opinions, this is something over which I'm torn.
Personally I find the attempt to divorce opinion from journalists as worrisome. Not that it's not possible, but the air of objectivity has to be deserved. And a lot of journalists don't deserve that air.
It can be placed on a piece with some creative editing, like you pointed out. Only, how do you find out if someone has tainted their piece or not?
Personally I like opinionated journalists. Journalists use their instincts to understand stories, find issues and to present those issues. It's hard to separate opinion from the story, especially if it's something new, and without a lot of debate surrounding it. Maybe all journalists should be clearly opinionated; at least that way we'll know where this story is coming from.
That, to a certain extent, is transparency. News would also be more interesting.
A reply on Conversation: What is the importance of building transparency in news media, and what would like to see? Any risks?
I read a book, Death and Life of American Journalism by Nichols and McChesney, and they suggested that the government should pay up to 45,000 dollars of a journalist's salary. I'd agree with them, but only because there's no other way of financing this difficult business and still producing quality content.
A reply on Conversation: What is the importance of building transparency in news media, and what would like to see? Any risks?
Particularly, I think you overestimate people's desire to participate in social media. Social media is easy, and people like that. But mass media is easy too, and packages information much more neatly than social media.
You can go on Twitter and Facebook and follow an interesting story, or you can have the story packaged and told to you by a documentary or by the news. I think social media is an important way people get news, but I don't know if mass media can be entirely usurped. Mass media is still easier than social media in many respects. It still has a place at the dinner table.
On top of the fact that people might still be interested in mass media, the structures for regular publication of information don't exist in social media yet. People of all kinds depend on regular updates on stock markets, updates on sports, updates on municipal politicians etc.
The resources for this don't exist in social media yet. Regularily updating sports information, or regularly updating information about a city-hall by-laws can't be effectively done by social media.
Not to mention investigative reporting, which is a time-sink and an even worse money-sink.
Do you really think random people will be able to coalesc into efficient, and free, media producers?
A better analogy might be social media as a healthy horse, and mass media as train.
Sure, the horse can take you anywhere, but sometimes you just want to get on, fall asleep, and wake up where you needed to go.
A reply on Conversation: What is the importance of building transparency in news media, and what would like to see? Any risks?
The travel or life section of newspapers is often exactly that: a paid advertisement.
Don't get me wrong, I like those sections. People use those sections to shop around for deals, or learn something new. It's not bad.
But when news stories are run about a new spa, and all the reporter did was talk to an employee of the spa, it's the same thing as an ad.
A reply on Conversation: What is the importance of building transparency in news media, and what would like to see? Any risks?
Simply choosing what is news and what isn't, is a political opinion. It doesn't even have to be conscious. If a reporter has someone in their family with a disability they are more likely to address disabled issues, because they understand the language and issues surrounding disability. You're getting that reporters point of view, their political opinion.
I like your suggestions about a round-table. But that has time constraints. How do you find a doctor, a nutritionist, a dietician and a research assistant for the 6 oclock news? Or for every 6 oclock news?
A reply on Conversation: What is the importance of building transparency in news media, and what would like to see? Any risks?
To say news should go back to being more serious, is like saying that you preferred the horse-and-carriage to the car. Maybe you liked the horses companionship, and found it a more intimate mode of transportation, but a horse-and-carriage is untenable on our roads and highways.
News needs to find a middle ground in all this. It needs to be exciting and interesting, but it also has to be real and challenging.
And the 'flashy' strategies aren't necessarily a bad thing. Tough questions from partisan right-wing media can evoke issues and questions that left-wing media wouldn't evoke. And vice-versa.
As for Scott's comment that news is just entertainment, I'd fundamentally disagree. News has political implications - implications into people's every day lives. The current news system isn't the best example, but it certainly has its moments of impact: it can force a politician to quit, or expose a harmful drug to the public.
Whenever someone is trying to pass something off as 'fact' - or even a point of view - then we need transparency.