Today, while reading an article from The Atlantic, I began to question whether reporters, journalists, bloggers, newscasters and basically anyone in the media, who shares an opinion on politics, should be required to disclose their political beliefs up front. In the article I read, Mitt Romney Drops His 3 a.m. Phone Call, James Fallows admits up front that he “worked for a Democratic president” and that he prefers the “Democratic position to the Republican” in almost all major policy areas. This is not the first time I’ve come across a journalist or opinion writer who states their intended belief up front, but it was the first time I started to ask myself about the credibility of their opinion.
I’ll tell you what brought this about. Last night, in my Communication Ethics, Law, and Regulation class, we were discussing what happens when companies pay bloggers, or people with large Twitter or Facebook followings, to write positive reviews or endorsements for their product. Should such people be honest up front about being paid to promote merchandise or should they make no mention about what their real motivation is? What are the consequences of each? Our class, for the most part, agreed that we would like to know and distinguish between a genuine endorsement and a paid endorsement. For us, the stake was trust. In the ever-evolving social media sphere of influence, more people want honesty. That’s not to say a company can’t pay to have someone review a product or mention it, but it should be honest. If there are problems they should be brought to light. If a car doesn’t function correctly, or a new gadget is not user friendly, make mention of that. We want, and expect the truth.
Thus today when reading Mr. Fallows article I asked myself, should those same open and honest standards apply to the political opinion makers and influencers? Do we want journalists to disclose their political beliefs? For example, should they disclose: 1. Which party they belong. 2. Who they have voted for over the last 3 elections. 3. Who they plan on voting for in the upcoming election.
I think they should. I feel like most journalists today try and slyly use adjectives and wordy writing, (to say nothing of the personal attacks) in subtle manner in order to persuade the reader opinions. By being honest up front, writers can more clearly articulate why exactly they support (or don’t) about a certain policy or position. No need for all the subtle words. Nor do I think that by being honest about their political views journalists are likely to loose creditability. By knowing where they are coming I’ll have a better understanding of what they are hoping to achieve and why. I often have in-depth political discussions with people who have different ideas than I do. I find those conversations enlightening. In no way does knowing what someone’s political party or persuasion hinder their ability to converse with me. In fact, knowing it means we’re having an open and honest conversation.
I would every much like to know what you think, so please, share your thoughts.
herethereaneverywhere 
I think in general, it’s been extremely sad to see journalism turn into partisan punditry on such a massive scale, in which “journalists” openly extol their own subjetive opinions, values, and sometimes even go as far as to openly admit to trying to influence public policy. This is something that happens on both sides, and it’s really a product of our society’s need for a 24 hour news cycle. You have the networks that constantly need to satiate people with “news” every hour on the day, and you have the news sites and blogs that need to deliver content on a minute-to-minute basis.
So what happens is these sites, blogs, or networks depend on their “journalists” focusing on being entertaining rather than objective. And if you ask me, I think that’s a shame.
I understand your reasoning in that you’d rather see up front honesty rather than passive-aggressive, slick opinion puffery, and to some extent I agree. I’d rather pundits and biased writers be more open with their opinions than outright put on a facade and pretend to be delivering objective news. But, above all I’d rather objective writing, facts, etc than all of it. One of my favorite news sources is the Christian Science Monitor, which is very much “classical journalism.” The fact that the CSM exists the way it does allows me to think there is still hope for objective news, but we’ll see what happens as punditry continues to become more and more popular.
It is reasonable to argue that making clear the background of journalists is better for audiences to know to which degree the journalist’s articles should be trusted. However, I don’t think it is a good try. Disclosing personal political beliefs is similar like putting a tag on different people. In that case, you are more likely to have a preconception of individuals whom you talk to, and then show less trust of their articles related to politics. I am not a political fan, but am strongly interested in culture. I think that the term “stereotype” is proper to describe the situation above. People will become judgmental if they know the context of others before starting a conversation. Easy principle! Journalistic integrity does not depend on how much audiences know about the writer in a “labeling” way; in contrast, it is based on to which degree journalists (especially citizen journalism) critically express their opinions. The open and honest public sphere also requires whether audiences critically select information and give comments.