Skepticism trumps objectivity and transparency

One of the guys I follow on the ubiquitous Twitter, Jay Rosen, again pointed me to a thought-provoking item on the Web, a blog by David Weinberger called Joho, Journal of Hyperlinked Organization.

Weinberger postulates “transparency is the new objectivity.”

He illustrates with an anecdote in which he says he asked Walter Mears, the Pulitzer Prize-winning political writer for The Associated Press, at a political convention in 2004 who he was supporting for president. Weinberger recounts that Mears replied (paraphrasing), “If I tell you, how can you trust what I write?”

To which Weinberger says he replied that if he didn’t, how can we trust what he blogs?

“What we used to believe because we thought the author was objective,” Weinberger argues, “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.”

He has a point, as far as it goes. I’d counter that transparency is an aspect of the goal of objectivity. When this newspaper has a relationship with a subject of a story or commentary, we go out of our way to reveal it.

Frankly, most writers and readers are moving targets. If told you I voted for McGovern that does not tell you much about my political leanings today.

Context is the key, more so than declarations of objectivity or even transparency. When you read what someone says you are not writing on a blank slate. The reader comes with his or her sets of facts and biases with which to judge, sometimes fairly, often not.

So, look for transparency and claims of objectivity, but the bottom line as always is: Read, listen, view with a degree of skepticism.