Transparency to the Rescue?

Michael Karlsson,Christer Clerwall

doi:10.1080/1461670x.2018.1492882

Abstract

Transparency has emerged as an ethical principle in contemporary journalism and is contended to improve accountability and credibility by journalists and scholars alike. However, to date, few attempts have been made to record the public’s views on transparency. This study enriches current knowledge by using data from an experiment, survey and focus groups in Sweden collected between 2013 and 2015. Overall, the results suggest that the respondents are not particularly moved by transparency in any form; it does not produce much effect in the experiments and is not brought up in the focus groups. While that is the key finding of this study, it should also be noted that various forms of user participation are evaluated negatively, while providing hyperlinks, explaining news selection and framing, and correcting errors are viewed positively. Implications for journalism practice and research are discussed.

Highlights

Transparency has emerged as an acknowledged ethical principle in journalism and is considered to both challenge traditional objectivity and journalistic practices, while providing an opportunity toconnect with citizens to build trust and credibility (Phillips 2010; Lasorsa 2012; Morton 2015; Slattery 2016; Vos and Craft 2016)
The results suggest that the respondents are not moved by transparency in any form; it does not produce much effect in the experiments and is not brought up in the focus groups
Previous research has found that news outlets use what is effectively known as transparency tools, such as explaining news selection and using corrections, which can be viewed as the transparency norm in practice

Summary

Introduction

Transparency has emerged as an acknowledged ethical principle in journalism and is considered to both challenge traditional objectivity and journalistic practices, while providing an opportunity to (re)connect with citizens to build trust and credibility (Phillips 2010; Lasorsa 2012; Morton 2015; Slattery 2016; Vos and Craft 2016). While that is the key finding of this study, it should be noted that various forms of user participation are evaluated negatively, while providing hyperlinks, explaining news selection and framing, and correcting errors are viewed positively.

Results

Conclusion