If you read Jeffrey Martin’s column in last Sunday’s Sports section, you probably now have a substantially errant view of what "transparency" means in the news world.
At times I’ve been as quick as anyone to roll my eyes at gimmicky trends in the news business, and I’ve watched many come and go with little result. The idea of transparency isn’t one I’d throw on that scrap heap.
Transparency isn’t about newspaper editors explaining away the mishap of the day. Transparency simply means the newspaper’s decision-makers explain more often why they make the decisions they make. Readers won’t necessarily agree with the decisions, but they can more often understand the rationale behind them. That’s why this blog exists.
I don’t get how that can be a bad thing. The current movement toward greater transparency — more willingness to shed light on what we’re doing and why — is a much-needed shift from an old newsroom culture that said to readers, "It’s none of your business." If someone wants to label it a buzzword, OK. But it beats the culture it’s replacing: institutional arrogance.
Sherry