Transparency: A Democratic Force or an Oppressive Power?

The notion of transparency within public institutions goes at least back to the 18th century, when philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham conceptualized the panopticon, a socio-technological system of behavioral control (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1983). The panopticon’s architecture (a round prison building including an internal circular yard with a watchtower in its center) functions as the technological infrastructure of transparency, enabling unobstructed observation. The panopticon provided maximum visibility and surveillance by allowing guards to directly see into every single prison cell, reducing the level of physical and mental privacy of the imprisoned to basically zero. Prisoners never knew whether they were being watched or not. Thus, the technological structure forced them to act as if they were being constantly observed (Allen, 2008; Foucault, 1995). This type of mental conditioning creates a power relationship between the observer and the observed, triggering an automatic form of self-discipline, which obviates the need for corporal punishment (Foucault, 1995). Foucault argues that this system of visibility, when applied to the entire society, can be highly democratic as everybody is affected and everybody can come and see “how the schools, hospitals, factories and prisons function” (p. 207). But he also describes the panopticon as “a cruel, ingenious cage” (p. 205) because the regime of transparency is not intrinsically positive. It restricts freedom and privacy, leaving individuals no choice but to participate in the system. Yet, in reality, transparency is often limited, giving individuals, groups, and organizations some form of control over what they make visible to others.

While the transparency system of the panopticon renders visibility as an instrument of control, surveillance, and power, the concept of transparency also evokes positive connotations such as honesty and truthfulness. These latter values are critical for building respectful relationships within society. In journalism, honesty and truthfulness are being espoused as declarations of professional integrity and legitimacy, indicating, at least theoretically, a commitment to some level of transparency. As transparency appears to be an integral part of journalistic professionalism, several scholars have advocated that transparency should be adopted for transparency’s sake (Allen, 2008; Plaisance, 2007; Ward, 2014).

Transparency ought to be seen as a good in itself. That is, that it ought to be adopted not in an attempt to resolve some problem, but rather because it is believed that being transparent will aid in the establishment of a democratic discourse.

(Allen, 2008, p. 336)

Beyond such calls to implement transparency for transparency’s sake, various other institutionally external and internal pressures contribute to the adoption of the norm in journalism, specifically the aforementioned changing sociocultural conventions, technological innovations, and ethical deliberations.

The Journalistic Institution and a Growing Culture of Transparency

The development of transparency in journalism over the past century is closely linked to a rising culture of transparency in society. As businesses and governments started to open up (Florini, 1998; Hood, 2006), calls for greater transparency within journalism also started to appear. Craft and Heim (2009, p. 218) posit “The push for greater transparency in the news media can be seen as part of a global trend toward transparency in such diverse areas as corporate financial reporting, monetary policy, international politics, and food and tobacco labeling.”

Sociocultural changes in the 1960s have been described as the starting point of this rising culture of transparency, creating an openness of and public access to institutions that was previously unknown (Heclo, 1996). In his book The Right to Know—Politics and Culture of Transparency, Michael Schudson (2015) details what led to this opening up of society across public, private, and professional domains. Schudson argues that the triggers for gradual cultural changes in journalism can be found in the mid-1940s. The developments that led to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966, according to Schudson, started with journalists advancing the public’s right to know through a freedom of information movement 20 years prior. After all, access to information is critical in order to fulfill the role of a true watchdog for the people. But only the convergence of various factors fueling each other led to a gradual but continuous shift and change in culture toward more openness, which all contributed to the passing of the FOIA. Among the various contributing factors, Schudson points to the publication of the Kinsey reports (which at the time rather uncommonly talked openly about adult sexuality) or the enactment of legislation in the United States that required car dealers to transparently display the price of new cars (window price stickers). This rise of “the right to know” fostered an increasing institutionalization or taken-for-grantedness of transparency in all parts of society (Schudson, 2015). Moreover, the incremental increase in transparency started a spiral of openness because it enabled journalism to make previously invisible information public, which in turn further fueled the demand for transparency. In other words, journalism’s role in pushing for greater transparency in society also led to greater transparency within the journalistic institution.

But transparency had already been part of the journalistic value system for some time. In fact, early forms of transparency have been around for a century, ever since Walter Lippmann (1920) suggested that reporters name their sources and attribute information to those sources. In print journalism, this “opening up” was also marked by the introduction of bylines as a regular feature in newspapers around the 1920s and 1930s (Schudson, 1978). Bylines not only show who wrote a story but also put more responsibility on the individual author. Specifically, while indicating the “specialization” of a reporter, bylines can also contribute to an increasing perception of the “subjectivization of facts” (Schudson, 1978, pp. 144–145). On an organizational level, bylines are also considered to be a possible “deterrent to plagiarism” (Reich, 2010, p. 717). But bylines are also frequently used to attract readers. In sports journalism, for instance, famous athletes, such as Babe Ruth, penned articles without transparently acknowledging the help of ghostwriters (Carvalho et al., 2018). Today, bylines frequently link to author descriptions, bios, or contact information, providing more background about the education, specialization, and work history of a journalist. Such personalized information can often act as an invitation for audiences to interact with individual journalists.

The founding of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1922 and the subsequent introduction of an ethical code in 1923, Canons of Journalism, also pushed for more responsible journalism by being transparent in specific cases (Evensen, 1989). The ASNE’s first ethics code advocates its primary duty to the public and the truth. But under the heading of independence, the code also states, “So-called news communications from private sources should not be published without public notice of their source” (ASNE, 1923). Here, the need for some form of transparency via a public notice is more strategic than principled, because in this context disclosure primarily functions to protect journalism from possible perceptions of bias or lack of independence.

Despite these early beginnings, many decades passed before the journalistic institution started to embrace transparency as a value on its own. This may also be due to the fact that journalists often describe themselves as the “good guys,” who “seek the truth and report it,” thus not seeing the need to be transparent about their reporting (Koliska & Chadha, 2018). Nevertheless, external factors, such as technological advancements, kept pushing journalism toward more transparency.

Technological Triggers of Transparency in Journalism

Technology has been a major driver of transparency in journalism—initially to bring news personalities closer to the audience. While bylines were a first step toward revealing the reporters behind news articles, electronic media such as radio allowed listeners to hear journalists’ voices. Later, television showed even more by frequently giving faces and voices to various news reporters and on-air talents. Digital media, with its seemingly limitless publishing space and its ability to publish audio, video, and print formats next to each other, was able to provide the entire spectrum of transparency by giving readers more information about the producers but also increasingly more information about the production of news such as the gathering and witnessing of information in the field. Digital media (including social media) greatly contributed to an unprecedented visibility of journalism and journalists also by allowing for more interaction between news producers and the public. In fact, technology made the institutional barriers more porous, diminishing much of the institutional power of journalism (now anybody with a mobile phone can be a producer and publisher) while also opening a door to a greater dialogue and relationship with the public.

The use of instant online publishing also created a new and somewhat unintended transparency effect. Publishing, altering, and updating news stories online, right in front of the eyes of the readers, allows the audience to witness the process of journalistic work (Karlsson, 2011). This type of immediacy offers a glimpse into journalism’s backstage. Goffman’s (1974) framework of the presentation of self in everyday life—which differentiates between the front stage and backstage of social behavior—has been applied to better describe and theorize transparency in the realm of journalism (Chadha & Koliska, 2015; Karlsson, 2011). Goffman (1974) describes how social behavior is molded by the various conventions, rules, and norms within specific contexts in which social interactions take place. He differentiates between the front stage, as the public performance of social roles, and the backstage, where the front stage behavior or performance is being prepared. In journalism the front stage corresponds to the finished and polished news media products (articles, radio and television broadcasts, etc.) but also the seemingly flawless professional image of authoritative and truth-abiding journalists. Allowing the audience to look beyond this front and see the backstage thus constitutes transparency. The public can view the journalistic production process and receive more background information through hyperlinks (raw data, similar stories, and contextual information), explanations (descriptions of methodologies, approaches, limitations, etc.), corrections, and online discussions (often below news stories). At the same time audiences get access to journalists and news organizations (via journalists’ profiles, bios, previous work, email, and social media contacts). Although not all of these aspects are necessarily wholly new ways of being transparent (many newspapers have long published corrections and letters to the editors), digital technology now allows for a timely and public communication of all transparency information often adjacent to or within the story itself.

Yet, the quantity and type of information being made public may not always be the most influential aspect of transparency. Instead, it is also important to consider how transparency information is communicated and displayed. The differentiation between the what and the how may help distinguish the practice of disclosure from the ethical norm of transparency in journalism. Lessig (2009) suggests that information disclosure by itself is not enough as it can undermine the public’s faith in the political system. Similarly Ward (2014, p. 45) argues that “transparency is not sufficient for responsible journalism,” but may be a precursor to another central value in journalism—accountability. Thus, transparency should not simply be about the disclosure of information but also about the ways people interact, communicate, and build relationships with one another (Plaisance, 2007).

Ethical Roots of Transparency in Journalism

The notion of transparency closely aligns with the democratic mission of journalism, which, at its very core, is based on truth telling (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007; McBride & Rosenstiel, 2014; Singer, 2007). The focus on truth telling also sets transparency in journalism apart from other fields such as commerce and politics, where transparency information is often purposefully employed or strategically deceptive (Fung et al., 2007; Granados & Gupta, 2013). Practitioners and scholars have argued for some time that transparency is or should be a vital aspect of journalism (Plaisance, 2007; Vos & Craft, 2017). Transparency not only facilitates truth and honesty, but also freedom, because it can minimize secrecy or the omission of information, reducing the risk of manipulation (O’Neill, 2002).

Drawing on Kant’s humanity principle, Plaisance (2007) argues transparency is at the core of human morality and communication, as it enables the pursuit of truth as a central prerequisite of personal freedom. Truth is similarly essential to journalism’s democratic role in order to enable people to decide autonomously. In fact, “Kant’s notion of ‘duty’ to others . . . is really a core principle in the journalistic mission to ‘serve the public’” (Plaisance, 2007, p. 204). But Ward (2014, p. 47) cautions that “important distinctions collapse” when “transparency is used improperly as a synonym for democracy, accountability, responsibility, honesty, frankness, and lack of pretense.” Honesty, integrity, and even truthfulness can be independent of transparency. According to Ward, journalism itself is often honest and truthful, but not necessarily transparent about its methods or sources. In fact, transparency can in many instances be a problem and hamper honesty and truthfulness. Providing extra information in an effort to be transparent can at times distort the understanding of a truthful and honest journalistic account (Ward, 2014). Ward (2014) suggests not every form of transparency is ethical, especially when private information is disclosed that could be harmful to an individual or a group. In such cases transparency clashes with the goal of responsible journalism. Transparency, Ward argues, instead helps to promote accountability. He contends that while transparency allows a “look into the internal workings of newsrooms” (p. 51) accountability goes much further, as it “adds to responsibility the idea of answering for one’s actions to someone, and the possibility of sanctions” (p. 48).

The notion of accountability requires not only the provision of accurate or truthful information but also implies participation and interaction, which is facilitated by more accessible information about the journalistic process and the people behind the news. Habermas (1989) suggests that the nature of dialogue is transparent and as such also facilitates information disclosure. But meanings of transparency start to shift if the communicative aspect becomes a more central factor of the norm than the disclosure or access to information. Openness in communication and interaction enables community building and as such can foster a closer relationship between journalism and the public (Carey, 2009).

Practicing Transparency in Journalism

Although the adoption of transparency is assumed to positively influence the perception of news organizations or journalists as legitimate and trustworthy (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007), no policy or regulation requires news organizations to be transparent. News outlets are free to follow the recommendations provided by professional and ethical guidelines. Transparency is thus a social contract between news organizations and their audiences. This also sets journalistic transparency apart from transparency practices in other fields like politics or business, which often have specific disclosure policies mandating transparency for all organizations. In other words, there is no specific standard for individual news organizations or journalists to follow regarding how to implement transparency. The practice of transparency can thus differ from news organization to news organization, or journalist to journalist. However, independent fact checkers (including many from the Global South) that are part of Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) must abide by a number of transparency regulations, from publicly showing their finances to disclosing their production processes. Members of the IFCN are also audited every year to check whether they abide by these transparency practices. A failure to follow the transparency standards can lead to a loss of IFCN membership (IFCN, n.d.).

Whereas individual news organizations and journalists are free to decide what transparency practices they will implement and practice, several technologically ubiquitous news website features suggest a level of isomorphism or uniformity of transparency practices in journalism. Hyperlinks, time stamps, author bios (often accessible via a byline hyperlink), comment sections, social media, and email contacts are all common features of news websites and news articles online (Karlsson, 2010). But not all news organizations facilitate comments below articles (sometimes depending on the topic), and sometimes author bios are kept to an absolute minimum; that is, the bio is just a byline (mentioning the author’s name) (Koliska, 2015).

Corrections (often below an article, sometimes on a separate webpage) are also a common transparency feature, especially among newspapers, which published selected corrections long before the introduction of digital news media. Broadcast companies abstained in the past from public “mea culpas” on air unless a very grave error occurred. Now, in the digital age, on-air corrections are still rare and infrequently implemented among broadcasters, with the exception of National Public Radio (NPR). Broadcasters like CNN and Fox News use corrections infrequently (Koliska, 2015). Displaying corrections also depends on how individual news organizations define mistakes that warrant a public correction. Generally speaking, news outlets correct obvious factual errors such as wrong titles, names, locations, and so on. Smaller mistakes like misspellings, typos, and incomplete phrases are usually “mended invisibly” (Chadha & Koliska, 2015). Moreover, corrections normally don’t include possible biases or misinterpretations of situations or contexts that could be misleading (Koliska, 2015). Interestingly, research suggests that news consumers frequently do not really appreciate corrections because they expect accurate news (Karlsson et al., 2017).

At times news organizations also try to provide transparency information about journalistic methodologies. Although some organizations offer a glimpse about their practices in the “About us” or “mission statement” sections of their website, specific methodological explanations are often reserved for larger projects or investigative stories (Chadha & Koliska, 2015; Koliska, 2015). In such cases, an accompanying article describes the procedure of covering and producing the individual story. Data-driven and sometimes algorithmically produced stories share methodologies more frequently. But proprietary information like source code, which could give a sense of how an algorithm makes decisions, are not being disclosed. The size of the project again plays a role. Short financial reports and sport stories produced algorithmically as used by the AP and other companies rarely explain how the algorithm functions or how the data have been processed or whether an algorithm wrote the article in the first place (see Diakopoulos & Koliska, 2017). In general, most news stories do not offer a specific account of methodologies.

Some news organizations also invite audience members to participate in editorial meetings or in larger organizational conferences, allowing the public a closer look behind the curtain (Koliska & Chadha, 2016, 2018; Koliska, 2015). On the individual level, interactions with the public occur when journalists answer questions via email, phone, video chat, or social media. These exchanges and interactions not only open the institution’s doors but can also foster deeper relationships with the audience. Such outreach efforts, especially when direct, personal, and respectful, have been described by journalists as very effective, possibly leading to more respect and trust from the audience (Koliska & Assmann, 2019). Yet, such attempts of entering into a dialogue with the public are still infrequent and often make up only a small part of a news organization’s transparency efforts.

Transparency and Its Effects

Transparency has been credited with the ability to induce trust and credibility (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007), to be better than objectivity (Weinberger, 2009), to allow audiences to recognize superior forms of journalism (Karlsson, 2011; Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007), and to improve the methodology of journalism (Allen, 2008). Empirical research testing the effects of transparency, however, remains limited and somewhat inconclusive. Some scholars have even warned that no immediate effects of transparency on trust should be expected (Allen, 2008). Others argue that trust would not be gained by unveiling secrets, but rather by reducing the occurrence of deception and lies (O’Neill, 2002).

A few studies have tested the effects of transparency on trust and credibility, with limited and mixed results. Roberts’s (2007) experiment examined whether the presence of transparency will increase credibility perceptions of a local newspaper online. He did not find any significant results. Meier and Reimer (2011) sought to find the effects of transparency on trust within the news media context of Germany. Although the researchers were able to find some significant transparency effects on trust, Meier and Reimer described the effects as small. Thus they concluded that the findings should be evaluated with caution. In Sweden, Karlsson et al. (2014) couldn’t find any significant results when testing the relationship between transparency and credibility perceptions. Koliska (2015) tested transparency effects on trust in the U.S. context. His experiment found no significant effects of transparency on trust at any transparency level. Findings from Tandoc and Thomas’s (2017) research indicate that readers’ perceptions of transparent articles (i.e., the inclusion of author information) had limited effects on credibility. In their study, readers valued objectivity higher than transparency, and non-transparent articles were seen as more credible than transparent ones. Curry and Stroud (2019) did find transparency effects on credibility perceptions among U.S. news consumers, but the effects were still relatively modest. More recently, Masullo et al. (2021) tested whether “story boxes”—editorial explanations about a given news article—could increase credibility ratings. The researchers found modest transparency effects on credibility in one of three experiments. Leading Masuallo et al. (2021, p. 2) to conclude that “transparency is not a panacea for increasing news credibility.”

The normative literature suggests that transparency will have positive effects on journalism, but empirical findings cannot, at least thus far, fully support these assumptions. The lack of consistent empirical findings may be, on the one hand, due to the fact that transparency in journalism has not been properly measured or its perception differs across sociocultural and national contexts. Audiences may also still have to become more familiar with transparency practices and what they signify. It’s also possible that audiences may not pay too much attention to or are disinterested in journalistic transparency. Curry and Stroud (2019), for instance, point out that participants in their study rarely interacted with the available transparency features. On the other hand, the reliance on disclosure transparency may not be sufficient to create credibility and trust among audiences. Instead, transparency may be more effective when it is used to invite the public into an active dialogue, building relationships and communities.