Transparency is the new objectivity
A friend asked me to post an explanation of what I meant when I said at PDF09 that “transparency is the new objectivity.” First, I apologize for the cliché of “x is the new y.” Second, what I meant is that transparency is now fulfilling some of objectivity’s old role in the ecology of knowledge.
Outside of the realm of science, objectivity is discredited these days as anything but an aspiration, and even that aspiration is looking pretty sketchy. The problem with objectivity is that it tries to show what the world looks like from no particular point of view, which is like wondering what something looks like in the dark. Nevertheless, objectivity — even as an unattainable goal — served an important role in how we came to trust information, and in the economics of newspapers in the modern age.
You can see this in newspapers’ early push-back against blogging. We were told that bloggers have agendas, whereas journalists give us objective information. Of course, if you don’t think objectivity is possible, then you think that the claim of objectivity is actually hiding the biases that inevitably are there. That’s what I meant when, during a bloggers press conference at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I asked Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Walter Mears whom he was supporting for president. He replied (paraphrasing!), “If I tell you, how can you trust what I write?,” to which I replied that if he doesn’t tell us, how can we trust what he blogs?
So, that’s one sense in which transparency is the new objectivity. What we used to believe because we thought the author was objective 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.
This change is, well, epochal.
Objectivity used be presented as a stopping point for belief: If the source is objective and well-informed, you have sufficient reason to believe. The objectivity of the reporter is a stopping point for reader’s inquiry. That was part of high-end newspapers’ claimed value: You can’t believe what you read in a slanted tabloid, but our news is objective, so your inquiry can come to rest here. Credentialing systems had the same basic rhythm: You can stop your quest once you come to a credentialed authority who says, “I got this. You can believe it.” End of story.
We thought that that was how knowledge works, but it turns out that it’s really just how paper works. Transparency prospers in a linked medium, for you can literally see the connections between the final draft’s claims and the ideas that informed it. Paper, on the other hand, sucks at links. You can look up the footnote, but that’s an expensive, time-consuming activity more likely to result in failure than success. So, during the Age of Paper, we got used to the idea that authority comes in the form of a stop sign: You’ve reached a source whose reliability requires no further inquiry.
In the Age of Links, we still use credentials and rely on authorities. Those are indispensible ways of scaling knowledge, that is, letting us know more than any one of us could authenticate on our own. But, increasingly, credentials and authority work best for vouchsafing commoditized knowledge, the stuff that’s settled and not worth arguing about. At the edges of knowledge — in the analysis and contextualization that journalists nowadays tell us is their real value — we want, need, can have, and expect transparency. Transparency puts within the report itself a way for us to see what assumptions and values may have shaped it, and lets us see the arguments that the report resolved one way and not another. Transparency — the embedded ability to see through the published draft — often gives us more reason to believe a report than the claim of objectivity did.
In fact, transparency subsumes objectivity. Anyone who claims objectivity should be willing to back that assertion up by letting us look at sources, disagreements, and the personal assumptions and values supposedly bracketed out of the report.
Objectivity without transparency increasingly will look like arrogance. And then foolishness. Why should we trust what one person — with the best of intentions — insists is true when we instead could have a web of evidence, ideas, and argument?
In short: Objectivity is a trust mechanism you rely on when your medium can’t do links. Now our medium can.
Shorter, more eloquent, and less head-exploding than the next logical step ;-)
Hi David,
Terrific post!
My one lurking fear about the Transparency over Objectivity idea is that if we come to expect that all things are transparent, that we will become lazy about looking further than what people self report.
As a usability person, I know people are very bad at self reporting, and as a student of legacy and individuated medias, I know that very hot topics are well covered, but not the lesser topics that don’t drive the juju for the potential fact-checkers AKA the audience.
I fear that less hot topics with less than stellar transparency around reporters/sharers of information and their POVs will not have the same scrutiny. I suppose this has also been the case in traditional reporting where there may have been less objectivity was marketed by media outlets, but how do we solve for this?
Thinking.
mary
Every aspiring journalist needs to read this piece.
The ‘objective reporter’ is an invention created by print newspapers. It is a hack that was created to counter the limitations of print.
Excellent post.
ps. i wish that little box was bigger so i could catch typos better.
Last sentence was meant to read:
I suppose this has also been the case in traditional reporting where there may have been less objectivity was as marketed by media outlets, but how do we solve for this?
I’ve always thought this, but was never able to articulate it clearly enough to make it make sense to other people. I hope you don’t mind getting quoted – a lot! – for tihs terrific article. I’d rather have transparency over pseudo-objectivity any day. The biggest hypocrites to me are those who say they tell anything complicated without bias.
Great post—it raises some really important questions as media moves forward in the age of web 2/3.0.
The issue I have with this idea, though, is that it veers toward eschewing objectivity in favor of transparency. In an ideal news media, both should coexist.
An attempt at objectivity—even if by its very nature inherently impossible to achieve absolutely—still has an important role in the news media. Lose it, and the media will be reduced to talking heads. (I think it has already, and therein lies the real issue, but nevetheless it’s never beyond salvaging.)
The view that “If the source is objective and well-informed, you have sufficient reason to believe” has always been flawed—and far too popular. It should be that “If the source seems objective and well-informed, you have found a great starting point” from which to do further research, investigation, and interpretation, but so few people have been told this or encouraged to do this. The media is a victim of its own, as you say, “arrogance. And then foolishness.”
So transparency, yes, should exist. But an attempt at objectivity needs to exist, too, because the majority of readers don’t have the motivation (or even the time) to seek out primary sources, verify facts, and get the back story about everything they read. It’s simply unfeasible. The media has a duty to those readers to inform them with facts as much as it does to inform them with what they think is the best opinion, linked and back-sourced though they both may be. To lose that idea is to lose the value of the profession.
Fine, fine thinking; and equally good exposition.
It’s about time that critiques of objectivity came with something progressive and positive, a welcome change from the deconstructionist mantra of academicist nihilists.
I like your flavor of truth coming from social engagement rather than splendid isolation. It wasn’t Walter Cronkite’s way in his time, but I bet he’d grok it now.
Great piece, stimulating, thank you!
Honesty IS the best policy.
I’d also be interested to know how this theory would go down in academic circles. Writing essays n’ reports on digital topics, n’ citing links, proved a nightmare for me when i was an undergrad (2005-08).
Logical argument well articulated.
Thank you for this excellent, well-articulated post!
I wouldn’t say Transparency *is* the new Objectivity. Transparency is the declaration of objectivity (or not). Hardly replaces it.
Good journalistic skills are still valid, where the writer can report objectively and put aside their personal opinion.
Excellent!
Now … all we have to do is teach people to follow the links rather than just believe.
In my experience, the average adult is no more skeptical of their ‘trusted news’ than they were of none-sense from the BFFs in middle school.
Sigh
Neat notion, thank you. Mulling about how it articulates to Benkler’s notion of the end of universal rationality. Related to this, I’ve been following the AGW debates on a number of the pro and anti blogs. An interesting interplay between paper-based authority (ie peer reviewed science) and the analysis of the many publicly available data sources by what might be regarded as professional amateurs. This is knowledge on the edge, though I suspect that the proponents of AGW would take that assertion as being opposed to their position. Transparency in these exchanges helps to a point but eventually you often run up against a very large data set that you’d have to work on in order to trace the argument to its basis. Always a problem when the knowledge is speaking on behalf of nature, in this case, global climate.
The notion of transparency you describe also seems to assume a particular rationality is at play. If we can talk about a ‘digital epistemology’, to point to perhaps a different kind of knowledge than that associated with paper, then truth claims seem to be more based upon numbers, i.e. 3,000 scientists say X, and here I am linking to all of them!
Thought provoking.
Coincidentally I had similar thoughts in a recent discussion with Chris Skinner re links to his blog on thefinanser.com from mine on finextra.com. Chris had well researched the article and provided links to the sources from which he drew.
I found it an interesting and relevant article to point my viewers to, merely writing a short teaser with a link to his blog.
We were astounded at how few of my readers followed the link to the source.
Ego makes me chose to think the readers trust that I have done so, before presenting Chris’s conclusion to them.
Perhaps they trusted it even more because of the link it clearly referenced?
Perhaps they did not wish ot visit Chris’s site?
A combination?
It would be interesting to be able to ask the readers, 0% of whom followed the link to the source.
Perhaps it supports all hypotheses?
I certainly prefer not to think that the readers don’t care about the roots of the idea, and would be doing them a disservice if I did so.
I’ll stick with the idea that they trust me to know (through experience) that there is a very solid basis to whatever I bring before them, and they don’t need to always follow the links to be sure. It is a trust that I’ll not betray.
It all comes down to trust and each of us have our own drivers and reasons as to why we trust others. Increasingly it is personal recommendation, only natural, since it is now so easy to communicate.
Of course if it is a commercial site there are soooo many reasons why links are few and far between.
The first that come to mind is keeping the viewer’s eyes on that site (and it’s ads),
and the second is that if you link all your sources, you’ll likely be dis-intermediated by someone with better resources.
Thirdly, making too strong a case stifles any discussion and turns the site into a one way stream, fine if that’s your intent, but perhaps not everyone’s target.
I’d say leave some glaring holes in your argument to stimulate discussion and participation by your readers if that’s what you want and the bonding/loyalty (and occasional flame wars) which goes with it.
If you just want to influence things, forget the committee approach, let em have it linked and loaded with both barrels and leave them stunned without a single comeback.
[...] this post Transparency is the new objectivity from Joho the Blog: "A friend asked me to post an explanation of what I meant when I said at [...]
Links can bring into view source material that used to be available only to reporters or other researchers. What if the government could become so transparent as to eliminate the need for certain kinds of reporting…
Transparency will certainly help a reader (or editor) assess the bearing and emphases of a reporter’s product to a certain extent, but unless we are speaking of descriptive accuracy, there are other qualities intrinsic to good journalism that mostly likely will determine whether we’re dealing with a piece that manages to penetrate the veil of appearances or doesn’t. Much depends on the reporter’s informed intuition and pragmatic curiosity, interrogative skills, empathy and imagination. At this point we’re well into complex acts of judgment. A bit on this here.
Fantastic post, and I most definitely agree.
Interestingly enough, what we are really doing is not choosing something new, but returning to an old idea that was somehow lost. When modern objectivity first arose in the early 20th century, postmodernism was on the rise, Freud had revealed the existence of the subconscious mind, and ironically, objectivity was actually never meant to suggest that somehow human beings could ever be a blank slate flee of bias. Instead of objectivity as a mirror, it was a METHOD of testing information – borrowing from some of the basic tenets of the scientific method – for testing and verifying information. Transparency was a critical part of that, much like scientists keep a detailed log in the lab so that others can determine how they got their results.
If anybody’s interested, some interesting history on objectivity and transparency can be found in Kovach and Rosenstiel’s book Elements of Journalism, Historian David Mindich’s Just the Facts, and Stephen Ward’s The Invention of Journalism Ethics (not really just about ethics per se, but a fascinating book about the history of objectivity beginning with the ancient Greeks and Romans)
Cheers,
Carrie Brown
assistant professor of journalism, University of Memphis
@brizzyc
Carrie – do you think transparency is a sub-criteria (along with others) of objectivity? If one cannot be objective except as a method, then there are varying degrees of objectivity, and to me, transparency becomes that much more critical if not more important….
[...] Joho the Blog » Transparency is the new objectivityhyperorg.com [...]
Kristen,
Yes – transparency is a critical aspect of objectivity-as-method. I don’t know if I’d call it a “degree” of objectivity, but rather just a different way of thinking about it entirely.
I guess that since the term “objectivity” has become so distorted in our culture (e.g. thought to mean “utterly free of bias,” which, as this post wisely points out, is something we all know is impossible) maybe we need a new term entirely. Ward calls it “pragmatic objectivity” – his goal is to carve out a space between total relativism – we are still searching for “truth” even with the knowledge it can never be an absolute and may always be evolving – and a false sense that anything could be bias free.
Kovach and Rosenstiel suggest that in addition to external transparency, we need a kind of internal transparency as well – an awareness of our biases, and then we can make a CONSCIOUS decision as to whether they are appropriate for not. Every news article, for example, has to make SOME choices about what to leave in and take out, what to lead with, etc. Some of these choices are benign, some may not be (for example, basic journalism values about newsworthiness and etc. dictate, rightly, some choices). The key is 1) being more conscious about those choices and 2) transparent about how you made them so others can make their own judgment.
I think “fairness” is another good way to think about it. If I’m making an argument in a piece, I try to present the opposing argument in a fair way, then rebut that. It’s the right thing to do, but it also makes my argument better because I’m not fighting a straw man.
Fairness is what I aspire to, anyway, and I occasionally achieve it.
Same goes for a reported piece. I’ve thought “objective” was nonsense since the first time I heard the word in high school. But fair seems like a good thing to shoot for, and transparency is a part of fairness.
[...] has a very interesting reflection on transparency as the new “objectivity” in [...]
Carrie – interesting, and taking that to the next level is to ask realistically about commercialism. Newspapers have to make money, just as blogs do. They get readers/subscribers by being controversial/newsworthy, which is often more biased towards one group or another (or a way of thinking, etc etc etc).
So now we have an inherent problem. How can a news source be as unbiased as possible and survive (make money)? I don’t think they can. I think they need to state their biases up front as branding and marketing positions (left/right wing, green, pro-naked-people-wearing-boa-constrictors-as-scarves – whatever) and niche. And admit any potentially conflicts through disclosure up front.
Of course the obvious problems come from being deliberately ignorant & only reading the sources one agrees with, but we’re seeing that more and more these days anyway. Sigh.
In 2005, Dan Gillmor wrote a terrific piece that suggests a new set virtues for journalist pieces in the post-objective world … http://dangillmor.typepad.com/dan_gillmor_on_grassroots/2005/01/the_end_of_obje.html
popurls.com // popular today…
story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…
I never believed objectivity was (or is) objective. I hope transparency is better than the old objectivity. But how do we know that transparency is really transparent?
[...] http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/07/19/transparency-is-the-new-objectivity/ [...]
The objective is eyes on page, and there goes the objectivity. From that point on all objectivity is lost.
If you don’t point out your sources either someone will ask, and it becomes a discussion, or
the readers will accept it at face value because they want to, or
they’ll go somewhere else, either because they don’t believe you or perhaps because they want a different viepoint which agrees with their sensibilities.
The web creates the infinite argument problem, because the number of links possible to support a balanced and ‘objective’ view would in all probability swamp the reader or lead them astray on some tangent. Where do you stop being ‘objective’?
One man’s objective is another man’s bias.
Media is just a filter through which people get a packaged view of information, like coffee, some want instant, others require a specific blend and grind. For a writer you need to decide whether you are a Starbucks, supermarket or boutique coffee shop information grinder and hang up your shingle for all to see. Sticking to your shingle will see you get a following.
.
The conclusion seems to be admit it and get on with it. The great thing about the new media is that there is plenty of other new media. Everyone is a star with their own channel.
Any discussions about how they program them are probably going to be pointless.
King Kaufman is right about fairness. We are all biased, and we have some idea what the other side(s) believes. If you can present the other sides case such that they give you credit for being accurate, then you have achieved the ultimate of fairness. You can present your side, and transparently admit it is your side, and attack what you believe is the weaknesses in the other side. If a newspaper had a fair minded person from the other side do the same thing, it gets exciting, and then they might even sell a few copies. On top of it, the authors, and even the reader might learn something.
I still think Douglas Adams nailed this in ‘How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Internet’ http://bit.ly/DA ten years ago:
Because the Internet is so new we still don’t really understand what it is. We mistake it for a type of publishing or broadcasting, because that’s what we’re used to. So people complain that there’s a lot of rubbish online, or that it’s dominated by Americans, or that you can’t necessarily trust what you read on the web. Imagine trying to apply any of those criticisms to what you hear on the telephone. Of course you can’t ‘trust’ what people tell you on the web anymore than you can ‘trust’ what people tell you on megaphones, postcards or in restaurants. Working out the social politics of who you can trust and why is, quite literally, what a very large part of our brain has evolved to do. For some batty reason we turn off this natural scepticism when we see things in any medium which require a lot of work or resources to work in, or in which we can’t easily answer back – like newspapers, television or granite. Hence ‘carved in stone.’ What should concern us is not that we can’t take what we read on the internet on trust – of course you can’t, it’s just people talking – but that we ever got into the dangerous habit of believing what we read in the newspapers or saw on the TV – a mistake that no one who has met an actual journalist would ever make. One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’.
[...] http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/07/19/transparency-is-the-new-objectivity/ [...]
[...] http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/07/19/transparency-is-the-new-objectivity/ [...]
[...] http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/07/19/transparency-is-the-new-objectivity/ [...]
[...] http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/07/19/transparency-is-the-new-objectivity/ [...]
“The problem with objectivity is that it tries to show what the world looks like from no particular point of view, which is like wondering what something looks like in the dark.”
No. Objectivity is about finding out what something IS, regardless of how it looks to us under any conditions. Light, or its absence, doesn’t change what something is when we’re not looking at it. (Anyone tried to invoke Schroedinger’s Cat yet?)
I think part of the problem is that we try to be “objective” about the wrong things. With anything involving people, it’s practically limited to physical aspects, e.g. you can objectively say that a person has no missing fingers. I defy you to be objective about the contents of a human brain – yours or anyone else’s. So, certainly, be wary if the path to objectivity leads to a single human observer.
[...] ist die neue Objektivität’. Was er damit meint, erläutert er anhand eines kurzen Gesprächs mit einem bekannten ‘Old-School’-Journalisten: Ich fragte Pulitzer-Preisträger Walter Mears während einer Blogger-Pressekonferenz bei [...]
[...] is the new objectivity http://bit.ly/JibI0 great perspective on new media beating old mediajack’s 6th birthday party at the sydney live [...]
[...] #linklog Can we drop the objectivity myth now? http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/07/19/transparency-is-the-new-objectivity/ [...]
[...] * David Weinberger: Transparency is the new objectivity. [...]
Transparency is the new social media Panacea?…
David Weinberger has written a post today on the subject of Transparency being the New Objectivity:
Objectivity used be presented as a stopping point for belief: If the source is objective and well-informed, you have sufficient reason to believe. Th…
[...] Weinberger: Transparency is the new objectivity. Here’s why: You can see this in newspapers’ early push-back against blogging. We were told [...]
[...] Weinberger: Transparency is the new objectivity. Here’s why: You can see this in newspapers’ early push-back against blogging. We were told [...]
Objectivity rests on the claims of independent thought and involves a leap of faith with regards to upholding that contract with the audience. Transparency makes no claim of trust, but opens the audience to not only the sources, but the biases. Hence, the former is a claimed ideal, the latter, a well-earned reality.
This difference was explored during Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings last week with regards to how cultural background and diversity affect the objectivity of a judge. To ignore ones biases is to be disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
The solution to inconvenient facts? Stop reporting them. For instance, tell me how we can have an intelligent discussion on abortion policy when some states no longer report statistics? Or the government refuses to level specific charges at Gitmo prisoners. Everyone has something they’d like to hide, even journalists.
Transparency, isn’t necessarily transparent.
Although I’d agree that fairness is important as some commenters have written here, fairness & balance can be tricky. What if there are more than two sides of the story? Or, what if the preponderance of the facts is on one side – is a journalist bound to give equal treatment to each? Does that serve the greater purpose, which is trying to establish truth?
I don’t think that the only option is to have all forms of journalism be openly biased or partisan to a particular point of view, although there’s certainly a place for that. I think that there IS a place for journalism that says, yes, we understand we inherently have biases, but we are going to be as transparent as possible about them. But our biggest bias is toward truthful, accurate information that the public can use to make up its mind about the important issues of the day. I think there IS a market and a need for that. It doesn’t have to be perfect (as I wrote earlier, “truth” is a messy, evolving, and impossible construct) to be important to our lives and our citizenship. Transparency is a key part of that.
[...] David Weinberger [...]
Transparency: the abundant references at the back of the high school essay paper to indicate the student read more than they thought.
Objectivity is lack of advocacy achieved by training to be a fair witness. Links have as much to do with that as the references studiously copied, neatly formatted and entirely disregarded into that high school essay.
Advocacy is the death of journalism.
Much of the discussion – such as Bullard’s statement regarding training to be a “fair witness” is sequestered inside an ocular, passive, receiving “view” of journalism – something is witnessed, one is trained to “bracket” one’s own biases, and one reports fairly etc.
Far more often journalism is a dialog in the agora. The journalist is more like a prosecutor than a witness, attempting to wrest the truth from an uncooperative agent.
Here’s an (relatively simple) example – NPR’s David Folkenflick describes the work of another journalist – Bartiromo, quizzing Thain. Folkenflick focuses on Thain’s incoherence, and seems to admire Bartiromo’s inquisitorial style.
The comment thread offers multiple other perspectives, suggesting that to these readers, Bartiromo was less than stellar, that entire “views” of the story were missing or incompletely realized in Bartiromo’s report. Some are downright dismissive.
What’s the “fair witness” to do with this sort of dissonance – both with regard to the interviewee, and in the reception of the work of the interviewer as well as of the reporter (Folkenflick) working at the meta-journalistic level?
Thanks for a thoughtful, thought-provoking, rigorous, and clear post about transparency, and how it relates to objectivity.
Given that objectivity in reporting is a worthy, if ultimately unattainable goal – this being a basis for transparency; I would be grateful for a post on your thoughts on “ignorance acknowledged,” or the role of intellectual humility and the recognition of one’s own limitations and how this relates to transparency and the quest for objectivity.
My personal experience suggests that the more we learn, the more we become aware of our own breathtaking ignorance; and that transparency is no substitute for intellectual humility and the quest for objectivity, rather it is a compliment to it.
I would be grateful to read more of your thoughts.
Do sources gain or lose credibility with various audiences by acknowledging ignorance?
How does the economic value of credibility influence the acknowledgement of ignorance or bias?
Cliche or not, your title helped me to get to your post, and your post helped me to understand blogging and writing better. Thank you.
[...] the new objectivity, but comprehensiveness just might be By Thomas Hansen In a terrific post, Transparency is the new objectivity, David Weinberger argues that the hyperlink nature of the internet is reshaping our notions of [...]
[...] Patrick, in Transparency is the new social media Panacea?, points to a post by David Weinberger, Transparency is the new objectivity: In the Age of Links, we still use credentials and rely on authorities. Those are indispensible [...]
[...] Cool Things You Can Do With YouTube Videos 15 Awesome tutorials and resources for web developers Joho the Blog Transparency is the new objectivity YouTube – Nirvana vs Rick Astley – Never Gonna Give Your Teen Spiri BBC NEWS Technology [...]
Great post. Transparency is a must in the new business world. If you want to gain the trust if people then one must be transparent in their business practices – no difference for blogging.
-Guna
follow me on Twitter http://www.Twitter.com/startupbooster
David Weinberger has written a post today on the subject of Transparency being the New Objectivity:
Objectivity used be presented as a stopping point for belief: If the source is objective and well-informed, you have sufficient reason to believe. Th…
Just a bunch of empty words- a salad for the hypocrites.
Who cares about all that BS?
To belive or to know?
Educated Hoi Polloi…
Thank you for being a herd!
“Objectivity without transparency increasingly will look like arrogance. And t…”…
Objectivity without transparency increasingly will look like arrogance. And then foolishness. Why should we trust what one person — with the best of intentions — insists is true when we instead could have a web of evidence, ideas, and argument?…
Good post. I agree, in general with the Internet, that “transparency” — the ability to make our own judgments from facts that we can observe and interpret first-hand — is being replaced by “objectivity” (other people doing this for us). However, I’m not sure that this is 100% positive.
For one, people cannot effectively consume all of the information coming at them. For instance, the mortgage securitization crisis affects everyone, yet I’d bet that less than 5% of people really understand what’s happening there. That’s not for a lack of information — most people simply lack the time, knowledge, or capacity to get a comprehensive understanding. This is the case for many complex issues outside of the average person’s scope of experience. That’s why you end up with a lot of bloggers taking half-baked, uninformed positions, or worse, rely on purely ideological arguments.
The second problem is that you’re removing specialization (and efficiency) in the gathering, processing, and interpretation of information. Granted, we might be more directly linked to the source, but that has its costs, too. We all have more cruft to sift through (Twitter), are forced to validate accuracy and authenticity for ourselves (Yelp), and then we have to make judgments and decide how to act. It puts a greater burden on each of us in terms of time and energy.
In the end, we’re really just shifting from the old gatekeepers to the new. Bloggers are the new journalists, Twitter is the new wire service, Google is the new library, TMZ is the new beauty shop. Not that it’s all bad — hopefully transparency can help enforce trust. But all of this access to information it can’t spare us from doing the hard work: thinking.
“…in the analysis and contextualization that journalists nowadays tell us is their real value…”
Which journalists, nowadays?
Brad Delong quotes a famous journalist as saying in a 6/24 e-mail, “…coming on Meet the Press allows you to frame the conversation how you really want to…,” an e-mail that’s only now become transparently available to those of us not originally cc’d, and tending to prove David’s point, I guess.
On the other hand, getting to my question, is it much of an improvement to say, as Glenn Greenwald quotes from the same person, “‘I think there are a lot of critics who think that [in the run-up to the Iraq War] . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you’re a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn’t do our job. I respectfully disagree. It’s not our role” — David Gregory, MSNBC, May 28, 2008.”
Um, well… NO!
By this thinking Fox News would be completely trustworthy because they are extremely transparent. They tell you every time who the quote and use info from. In fact they love to tell you because then they can promote their agenda.
So how does their loss of objectivity and increased transparency make them more trustworthy???
or
take two recent blogs on Mashable. One, in a blog about Apple not liking Microsoft’s ad’s, where the blogger stated something as fact when his own quotes proved that his first statement was not a fact. The blogger clearly hated Apple and was transparent, but he also lied about something being a fact. How did transparency equal trust there?
The other, was a while back, I believe was where the blogger was attacking Obama, or an Obama plan. The blogger was transparent with sources, Yet all sources were anti-dem sources. So how did transparency bring trust?
The truth is that to many use transparency as a excuse for lazy writing. The truth is that most people don’t investigate sources, even online when it is one click away. Proof of this is shown the night of MJ’s death. One site decided to do a fake report on another actor’s death. Even though the site stated that it was a fake report most people did not simply scroll down the page to read it! This even became one of Twitters highest trending topics for a while!!
The truth is we need both the highest level of objectivity a writer can achieve and transparency. If a writer can’t see this or the fact that most people don’t look at sources then that writer has no business writing in the first place.
If someone wants to write, cool, but put the effort in to strive for both, not replace objectivity with something new like saying transparency is the new objectivity.
My trouble with this maxim is that placing transparency this high, indeed as a serviceable modern day substitute for that allegedly discredited notion of objectivity, takes us down the road toward thinking you can’t trust what anyone says, even their logical syllogisms, if you don’t know exactly where they’re coming from. That is, all details of our personal lives need to be out there for everyone to see, lest our apparently logical argument is biased by some accidental personal experience we’re not even remembering. Of course we expect recusals and disclosures at some level. But “transparency” is a different standard than sensitivity to conflicts of interest. Of course on details of our personal lives, we are the only ones who can judge what’s important to disclose — unless the problem solves itself in the future because we all wind up living in glass houses.
[...] Weinberger writes on “Joho the Blog” that “transparency is the new objectivity“. In the post, he explains how journalists have traditionally strived to appear objective, [...]
This reminded me a lot of Hunter S Thompson and Gonzo journalism, which I’ve written a little about on my blog: http://www.adrianmouat.com/bit-bucket/2009/07/hunter-s-thompson-and-the-death-of-objectivity/
[...] Today I read Weinberger’s post that extends his “X is the new Y” cliché into something much mo…. [...]
I said: Advocacy is the death of journalism.
Training is possible and helpful. Some call that education.
Practice is vital. Some call that professional.
The difference between journalism and blogging is that blogging is a conversation and journalism is a report of attested facts.
Would you rather ask a blogger if man landed on the moon or a journalist?
Or dispute a photograph attested to be recently taken?
The point of view that says only a first person report is reliable is right. The point of view that says a report is reliable only if I am the first person is only as referentially reliable as your reputation.
Otherwise, the cost of proof is greater than the loss of havng only one person in doubt, or sometimes, several. Caveat emptor.
There is definitely a place for advocacy. Where would we be without the Federalist Papers?
With all due respect — I do understand where you’re coming from! — I think you are giving up on objectivity too quickly and encompassing it in “transparency” will definitely take you places you won’t want to go. Either that or you are imagining transparency as to sources and transparency as to sources of personal bias as two different domains and you are talking only about the former. In any case, I am not so sure the two can be separated cleanly.
Here is a series of scenarios related to a reporter or blogger (you pick, but I’m going to imagine a male reporter) writing about a rape case, an example chosen because nuances of wording are very important. Two questions. (1) In which of these cases would the objectivity standard require recusal (self-imposed, or by an authority who became aware)? (2) Which should be addressed by transparency, and what does that mean — links to descriptions of the confounding circumstances?
a. Reporter’s wife is the victim in the case.
b. Reporter’s wife was a victim in an prior unrelated rape case.
c. Reporter’s brother-in-law writes books in which people get raped.
d. Reporter read a lot of Faulkner novels in college and was disturbed by the rape scenes.
e. Behind closed doors, reporter and his wife enjoy a bit of consensual bondage and associated fantasy.
Seems that there is a social consensus that in case (a) the reporter simply cant be trusted to be objective. Some might argue (b) also, but I doubt that would be the universal understanding. But a transparency standard would go much farther down the list in terms of disclosure. That can’t be what you mean, can it?
[...] topics http://bit.ly/SCRbL introducing the magnitwude calculatortransparency is the new objectivity http://bit.ly/JibI0 great perspective on new media beating old mediajack’s 6th birthday party at the sydney live [...]
Well put. Too much masquerades as objective that clearly isnt, and never can be. I would rather know the biases inherent and then make my own mind up. Trust in objectivity is for those who do not want to think and want instead to be told. BTW Donna Haraway talks of the same problems in terms of objectivity as a God-like view from nowhere and of us all being in the belly of the monster.
[...] Weinberger beschreibt in seinem Transparency is the new objectivity betitelten Text einen sehr interessanten Wandel. [...]
Jim Cramer was saying the same thing ten years ago. When he founded TheStreet.com, he wanted all the analysts/writers to disclose their positions and have their predictions rated at the end of the year.
Paper creates authority because whoever’s on paper has the final say, except over in the letters-to-the-editor column days later. Whoever gets in print wins and becomes a knowledge reference, end of story. Doesn’t matter how wrong they are, it still goes on the microfiche.
On the Internet, the story never ends, it’s more a matter of how far down the comments anyone’s willing to read. If somebody is wrong, it will be made loud and clear in the comments. This is the value of blogs: not that anyone can write a blog, but that any expert can weigh in with a retort on the same page without requiring permission (unless they get moderated out).
transparency = unmoderated comments
not
transparency = full disclosure
Disclosure is just a way to beat commenters to the punch. No matter how much you disclose, it’s still only one person’s opinion. You need multiple voices to vet a story.
The article, the responses, I’m in a daze………something truly special about thought development….all contribuers you are so special. Was arguing with a friend over the issue of arresting Sudan President, Albashir (not sure with spelling) over Darfur conflict. I am embarrased that African Union does not want to cooperate with the West (except Botswana & Uganda) and yet African people have been, and continue to be displaced or killed in their numbers. Crime against humanity. My friend supports African Union position on the grounds that the West, for all its inductment of Charles Taylor and Mulosovic etc to the Hague, is BIASED. He gives example of Iraq war and Bush unilateralism over UN obejctions to the war. I ask him, before Iraq? He says the West has always been biased. No need for documented proof. But proof can be supplied on request. Their assessment of issues is not objective, he continues. I feel so passionately about the positition taken by Botswana and Uganda. I think AU is not objective at all. I can fill up pages narrating my reasons for it, on request of course. So thanks for the article, I’m proud of all you contributors. Rich stuff! Mind provoking.
i am surprised @ your reference to science as an unbiased think/speak method.
[...] Blogbeiträge gesucht. Twitter und Copyright. Transparency is the new objectivity. Andrian Kreye hat jetzt ein [...]
[...] Hansen A key factor in establishing authority on the internet is, as David Weinberger convincingly argued, transparency: What we used to believe because we thought the author was objective we now believe [...]
“There is definitely a place for advocacy”.
Yes. The lecture circuit, the blog (the same thing really), the sponsored ad.
In the press room, it needs to stop at the point of selecting what is newsworthy. Is covering Michael Jackson’s death 24×7 journalism or advocacy? In what way does transparency infer objectivity in that coverage?
[...] ¿Asume que la capacidad de compatir contenidos de valor para su comunidad es la clave del “dospuntocerismo”? ¿Sabe que la reputación es una consecuencia de compartir información y conocimiento? ¿Qué contenido de valor podría aportar a su comunidad? ¿Comparte la idea de que la transparencia está adquieriendo el rol de la objetividad? [...]
[...] user needs, why librarians at 4:34 pm by Andromeda The always fascinating David Weinberger blogs on transparency vs. objectivity. Worth reading the whole thing — the argument gets deeper as it goes along. But here’s [...]
[...] Joho the Blog » Transparency is the new objectivity [...]
[...] Transparency is the New Objectivity Posted by E!! on July 22, 2009 Media Bias, New Media, blogosphere, transparency For all you online media and blog and journalism geeks, this is an interesting post. [...]
[...] view from nowhere”. An increasingly popular currency for credibility is transparency. This post by David Weinberger is a good representation of this school of [...]
[...] i guess) ensure that brands get a fair deal from the people they communicate to? Like I read in another context, would transparency fulfill the function that objectivity is supposed to? But as always, [...]
NYT:
“2 N.J. Mayors Arrested in Broad Inquiry on Corruption”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/nyregion/24jersey.html
BBC News:
“US rabbis arrested in crime probe”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8165607.stm
[...] Transparency is the new objectivity (Englisch) [...]
[...] Weinberger declares transparency to be the new objectivity: “Objectivity used be presented as a stopping point for belief: If the source is objective [...]
You speak of transparency replacing objectivity in journalism. I would suggest that the concept applies equally and more generally in the world of work. Once, employers were paternalistic figures of objectivity to us as employees and as citizens; we looked up to corporations and their leaders as objective decision makers and arbiters of right and wrong. As a society, we respected them for this. Now those curtains are being pulled aside (financial collapse, anyone?) and we see that our belief in the objectivity of institutions has been misplaced. Companies (not to mention political parties and countries) will soon find that transparency is the only thing that can rebuild the trust that has been lost.
[...] ever had as individuals or as a society. To quote David Weinberger from his recent talk at PDF09, Transparency is the New Objectivity: What we used to believe because we thought the author was objective we now believe because we can [...]
Thank you, sir. I feel much more comfortable being transparent about my subjectivities.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/18/cronkite/index.html
That touches on what has gone wrong in this country when the journalists surrender to the profit motive and practice demographically targeted advocacy to get their numbers up.
Transparency into a bottomless pit is actually worthless. It gives one the illusion of adequacy just as the twenty pages of references in a thesis based on false premises does.
I think the problem with this was nailed pretty early in the comments, but I’d like to add something. Transparency is only meaningful when the linking is done correctly and with intellectual honesty. If you read one piece that agrees with your opinion and one — or 47 — that goes against it, you’re free to link to the one that agrees, or maybe that and one that disagrees, but which you can easily rebut. Then comes the diligence and intelligence of the reader on top of that. And it’s a rare occurrence when your universe of knowledge coincides with a writer’s to the degree that you only have to check the things he or she chooses to link to.
Also, there are assumptions and judgment calls there just as there are with journalists, and they will continue to go unspoken to varying degrees by varying people. So if you link me to your facts you’re still not linking me to your assumptions, cultural and otherwise, or your judgments. So the elements that make up your subjectivity are as hidden as those that undermine a journalist’s objectivity. The onion has many layers.
What you’re really talking about doing is trading the claim of objectivity that a reporter gives you for the (supposedly) openly claimed and known subjectivity of a commentary writer. And you’ve also got the professional policing of the journalists versus the community policing of those linking on the web.
In the end, I think both can reach a level at which you feel safe stopping your inquiry with them, because it comes down to credibility, whether you achieve it because you live up to your claim of objectivity or because your posts are always exhaustively and honestly linked. And it has to come to that, because we need those authorities whose claims, opinions, facts, etc., we can trust, because we just can’t track down everything ourselves for every issue. We’ll have a range of issues, some of which we’ll take on faith, some of which we’ll check more or less thoroughly, and some of which we will only accept when we can lay eyes on it for ourselves. The credibility of journalists and the transparency of commentators (for want of a better word) will both fit in there.
Oh, and Cody: The objective reporter wasn’t a creation of print newspapers. Go back and read some Plato or Aristotle. Newspapers may have made it a profession, but the idea goes much further back.
[...] Is The New Objectivity David Weinberger declares transparency to be the new objectivity: “Objectivity used be presented as a stopping point for belief: If the source is objective and [...]
[...] Is The New Objectivity David Weinberger declares transparency to be the new objectivity: “Objectivity used be presented as a stopping point for belief: If the source is objective and [...]
[...] Unfortunately, in the eyes of the FTC, they are the same. So, as Stowe says, “I think we should go with the FTC interpretation until the FTC changes it, and lump them all into AD. Note: if people disagree with this convention, they can do what they want. But I feel that biases should be as transparent as possible: as Weinberger wrote, Transparency is the new Objectivity.” [...]
[...] Joho the Blog Transparency is the new objectivity "Transparency subsumes objectivity" – DavidW at his best explaining how to seek truth in a hyperlinked age (tags: blogs media journalism internet blogging politics trust davidweinberger weinberger transparency knowledge essay objectivity credibility triangulation) [...]
[...] Weinberger declares transparency to be the new objectivity: “Objectivity used be presented as a stopping point for belief: If the source is objective and [...]
[...] topics http://bit.ly/SCRbL introducing the magnitwude calculatortransparency is the new objectivity http://bit.ly/JibI0 great perspective on new media beating old media Powered by Fresh From Written by Bob Hitching [...]
[...] just seen this post – ‘Transparency is the new objectivity’ (via my American friend Nathalie on Facebook): “…transparency subsumes objectivity. [...]
[...] Unfortunately, in the eyes of the FTC, they are the same. So, as Stowe says, “I think we should go with the FTC interpretation until the FTC changes it, and lump them all into AD. Note: if people disagree with this convention, they can do what they want. But I feel that biases should be as transparent as possible: as Weinberger wrote, Transparency is the new Objectivity.” [...]
David,
Thanks very much for this post and the good discussion it has provoked. I found it very helpful in looking at some of the issues raised by Clark Hoyt’s contribution to the Spot.Us campaign for the Garbage Patch story — http://www.poynter.org/hoytspotus.
Especially helpful was this comment from Carrie Brown — http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/07/19/transparency-is-the-new-objectivity/#comment-48208 — which prompted me to ring up Rosenstiel, Ward and Mindich for chats about objectivity and indpendence.
Enjoyed your reference to your exchange with Walter Mears. I was there that day, during the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and Bob Steele and I used it in the lead of a piece we wrote for a conference on the ethics of blogging for Shorenstein —
http://www.poynter.org/rollyourown.
Thanks, Bill. I’d seen your very interesting article, and was pleased that you found this post useful in any way. — David W.
[...] really appreciated this post, which begins to illuminate the new construction of authority in a distributed environment. [...]
[...] construct with variable endpoints. Rewiring information in such a way radically changes its cohesive nature. This in turn [...]
[...] Fortunately, in the 21st century, with the birth of the social web, we have tools at our disposal that are orders of magnitude more powerful than we have ever had as individuals or as a society. To quote David Weinberger from his recent talk at PDF09, Transparency is the New Objectivity: [...]
[...] piece by David [...]
[...] Transparency is the new objectivity- Joho the Blog, July 19, 2009 [...]
[...] Transparency is the new objectivity- Joho the Blog, July 19, 2009 [...]
A few thoughts:
- Not being an alleged journalist myself, I’m the type of reader who never assumed any journalism was “objective” as in “neutrally factual”. Instead, the idea of transparency has always been valuable in a particular way: writers that I read repeatedly had an explicit perspective, and so I read them with the ability to unambiguously position what they said, for myself.
- Transparency per se is not where value comes from; explication of the mode of selectivity is where value comes from. I guess if you say that transparent methods are succeeding presumed authority, then I would agree.
David, thanks for some great observations! Another dimension of this is looking at different “channels” of adding value, as a journalist or as a person. Pre-Web, journalists would bundle two channels together, analysis and reportage, explicitly or not. Since “information” is exploding, that will put more value of synthesis and analysis, and less on reporting because everybody is a reporter now (obviously I’m not saying that everyone has the reporter’s discipline and training); information is hyperavailable, so reader and writer will have to select and, as you imply, the way in which the selection is made is important. If synthesis is applying original thought to other sources, being explicit in how one does that is another level of transparency. Authority is negotiated in open forums, it can’t be assumed, which would be arrogant (and fleeting ,^). This can have several benefits, for readers and writers. We will benefit from being more aware and explicit about about how we think and why. Yes, this will open us to criticism and embarrassment, but it will also enable us to iterate our thought and connect with other people better. Readers will have to be more aware of what they believe and why. Retated mental doodling on the demise of 3 Chicago publishing companies at http://globalhumancapital.org/?p=854, where I’ve just referenced this post.
[...] Economy” for the LinkedIn blog. In his post, he quotes David Weinberger’s post “Transparency is the new Objectivity“. Both are worthwhile [...]
Hi,
This is a terrific post with equally interesting comments around the challenges of lesser issues and ensuring transparency works as well at all levels. Also the case for objectivity is well argued. I am in quandry as to which side of the fence to jump. Both? Also interested in the question: Does this arguement stretch beyond the objectivity in the media and include the concept of objectivity in civic society particularly the law and politics in a democratic system. It feels to me that it should and that transparency resulting from new media channels is already changing the nature of objectivity in these insititutions but was interested in any clarification or references.
[...] as well as twattish. In a truly fantastic post by David Weinberger called ‘Transparency is the New Objectivity’ on the JoHo blog the author concisely explained how the ability to connect sources, follow an [...]
[...] Text ist meine Übersetzung des Originaltexts von David Weinberger (danke an David für die Erlaubnis, ihn zu übersetzen und hier zu [...]
[...] For related thoughts, I highly recommend David Weinberger’s Transparency is the New Objectivity. [...]
response to craig newmarks post about David Weinberger’s Transparency is the New Objectivity
@craig i have been thinking the future of news we can trust might look more like a wiki or dare i say it a variation of craigs list too and not top down management driven – even though as a doc filmmaker you realize everybody has a point of you even you/me/we – even if you don’t think you have one it’s still hard to escape – as doc filmmaker albert maysles says in my work in progress doc “who’s wearing the emperoro’s new clothes” if so many people believe in something how can it be wrong – alberts response to a question: what is not propaganda? he says, “rather than propaganda he likes to give people information and let them work it out for themselves” – in the process of editing, we pick and choose and present what we think and what we want people to know and see more often then not…- food for thought
Hello, your blog is really beautiful, I am glad to know you, I come from China, you are also free to take a look at my blog you may be able to help you, the theme is about the trend of foreign exchange of knowledge and analysis that a good say, the friends invite you to come, thank you! ~
[...] Πάνε λίγες εβδομάδες από τότε που διάβασα το σπουδαίο άρθρο του David Weinberger με τίτλο “Η διαφάνεια είναι η νέα αντικειμενικότητα“. [...]
[...] op te wachten? Een paar weken geleden viel alles op zijn plek na het lezen van het artikel Transparency is the new objectivity van David Weinberger. Dat sluit m.i. aan bij de ideeën van Tim [...]
[...] 14 08 2009 One of the most intriguing ideas about the digital revolution in journalism is David Weinberger’s claim that Objectivity is a trust mechanism you rely on when your medium can’t do links. Now our medium [...]
[...] Joho the Blog » Transparency is the new objectivity [...]
[...] billet et celui-ci ) fin juin et vient de la reprendre sous forme de billet qu’on peut lire sur son blog et sur celui de Supernova . Ça nous permet de la décortiquer. Elle en vaut la [...]
[...] * Este texto es una traducción libre (perdón por el atrevimiento) del post original “Transparency is the new objectivity” de David Weinberger, filósofo, consultor, conferencista y columnista venido a gurú del 2.0 tras [...]
[...] este post y este otro) de finales de junio y acaba de retomarla en forma de post que podemos leer en su blog o en el de Supernova. Eso nos permite desmenuzarla. Vale la pena [...]
[...] Sure, anyone can use social media tools such as ratings, comments, recommendations and reviews. The functionality is available to both real user and a hired hand. But what’s often disregarded is that using these tools means agreeing to the terms and conditions of transparency, authenticity and trust. Whether you’re a consumer or a PR firm, your message must be truthful, your tactics not dirty. Disclosure is key especially in these times when “…transparency is the new objectivity.” [...]
[...] » Joho the Blog » Transparency is the new objectivity [...]
[...] Transparency is the New Objectivity [...]
[...] removed experts are increasingly victims of the phenomenon that David Weinberger describes as “transparency becoming the new objectivity.” The notion of objectivity – the journalistic authority with credentials you can trust [...]
[...] Trust. Probably the most important point they hit on. If they don’t trust your site, given an alternative, they will not use your site. Building will mean being transparency, and transparency is the new objectivity. [...]
[...] est la nouvelle objectivité Francis Pisani revient sur le billet de David Weinberger – http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/07/19/transparency-is-the-new-objectivity/ – intitulé “la transparence est la nouvelle objectivité”. “La transparence est [...]
[...] objectivity. But objectivity has been declared a false idol. At PDF09 Dave Wineberger pronounced transparency is the new objectivity. And the journalism world breathed a sigh of relief. In our digital world, where links are the coin [...]
[...] If transparency is the new objectivity — more than our finished product must be revealed. [...]
I agree that objectivity as a benchmark is dead – actually I think this is part of what is making blogs more and more viable as news sources.
I saw an interesting Pew study that showed public trust in mass media as “unbiased” declined from 58% in 1988 to just 36% in 2007. If we know that every source brings their own agenda, at least if they’re transparent we know *what* bias they’re bringing. I’ll take that over the pretended objectivity of the mass media any day.
[...] – cachée dans l’ombre informationnelle des données – est devenue la nouvelle objectivité, clame David Weinberger sur son blog. A l’heure du lien explique-t-il, le mécanisme de confiance change : on passe de [...]
[...] dans l’ombre informationnelle des données – est devenue la nouvelle objectivité, clame David Weinberger sur son blog. A l’heure du lien explique-t-il, le mécanisme de confiance change : on passe de [...]
[...] New Objectivity 2009 Juli 31 Tags: BIG_IDEA, brand_theory, web_theory by lokomotivebreath Transparency is the New ObjectivityDavid Weinberger’s soon-to-be seminal post about how the internet changes the way we [...]
Автор, можно с вами познакомиться?
[...] David Weinberger’s answer to the question posed in the headline of this post is yes. He says transparency is inherent to the web, and that objectivity “is a trust mechanism you [...]
[...] David Weinberger argues: “Transparency subsumes objectivity. Anyone who claims objectivity should be willing to back [...]
[...] research happens in public domain. Cohn often echoes the sentiment of David Weinberger when he says “transparency is the new objectivity,” helping news organizations gain trust and credibility in the “age of [...]
[...] me to David Weinberger, who wrote the excellent Everything is Miscellaneous. In July, Weinberger wrote that transparency now carries a lot of the weight that used to be on objectivity’s [...]
[...] me to David Weinberger, who wrote the excellent Everything is Miscellaneous. In July, Weinberger wrote that transparency now carries a lot of the weight that used to be on objectivity’s [...]
[...] David Weinberger argues: “Transparency subsumes objectivity. Anyone who claims objectivity should be willing to back that [...]
[...] David Weinberger argues: “Transparency subsumes objectivity. Anyone who claims objectivity should be willing to back that [...]
Хотел посоветоваться с уважаемой публикой! Меня интересует все статьи данной направленности. Есть у кого?
[...] Shared Joho the Blog » Transparency is the new objectivity. [...]
[...] If transparency really is the new objectivity in journalism, as technologist and author David Weinberger says, the journalistic process becomes more transparent most likely over time, even in traditional news rooms. Is transparency something that the new generation of journalists will get used to? [...]
[...] Al tutto va poi aggiunta una riflessione di ordine più generale, sintetizzata recentemente da David Weinberger: «La trasparenza è la nuova obiettività; nell’odierna ecologia della conoscenza va rimpiazzando parte del vecchio ruolo svolto dall’obiettività». Secondo il noto autore e osservatore della Rete, quel che una volta prendevamo a scatola chiusa come obiettività per l’autorevolezza e il curriculum di un autore, oggi viene messa alla prova dalla citazione di fonti e riferimenti, dalle revisioni dell’opera, dai commenti altrui – elementi che tutti noi possiamo, anzi siamo chiamati a, verificare direttamente e in tempo reale. La transparenza prospera e si moltiplica in un medium (Internet) fatto di correlazioni continue, laddove invece nel cartaceo o in radio-Tv era l’oggettività pre-confezionata a farla da padrone. «All’estremo limite della conoscenza — nell’analisi e nella contestualizzazione che oggi i giornalisti ci dicono essere il loro valore concreto — noi vogliamo, necessitiamo, possiamo avere e pretendiamo trasparenza», conclude David Weinberger. [...]
[...] and editors influence the coverage.” Their new-media-savvy critics live in a world in which “transparency is the new objectivity,” and readers trust “here’s where I’m coming from” more than ostensibly [...]
[...] Secondo il noto autore e osservatore della Rete, quel che una volta prendevamo a scatola chiusa come obiettività per l’autorevolezza e il curriculum di un autore, oggi viene messa alla prova dalla citazione di fonti e riferimenti, dalle revisioni dell’opera, dai commenti altrui – elementi che tutti noi possiamo, anzi siamo chiamati a, verificare direttamente e in tempo reale. La trasparenza prospera e si moltiplica in un medium (Internet) fatto di correlazioni continue, laddove invece nel cartaceo o in radio-Tv era l’oggettività pre-confezionata a farla da padrone. «All’estremo limite della conoscenza — nell’analisi e nella contestualizzazione che oggi i giornalisti ci dicono essere il loro valore concreto — noi vogliamo, necessitiamo, possiamo avere e pretendiamo trasparenza», conclude David Weinberger. [...]
[...] Secondo il noto autore e osservatore della Rete, quel che una volta prendevamo a scatola chiusa come obiettività per l’autorevolezza e il curriculum di un autore, oggi viene messa alla prova dalla citazione di fonti e riferimenti, dalle revisioni dell’opera, dai commenti altrui – elementi che tutti noi possiamo, anzi siamo chiamati a, verificare direttamente e in tempo reale. La trasparenza prospera e si moltiplica in un medium (Internet) fatto di correlazioni continue, laddove invece nel cartaceo o in radio-Tv era l’oggettività pre-confezionata a farla da padrone. «All’estremo limite della conoscenza — nell’analisi e nella contestualizzazione che oggi i giornalisti ci dicono essere il loro valore concreto — noi vogliamo, necessitiamo, possiamo avere e pretendiamo trasparenza», conclude David Weinberger. [...]
[...] in recent months, after reading two articles: Putting Man Before Decartes by John Lukacs and Transparency is the New Objectivity by David [...]
plz visit dark side of this blog we have cookies http://www.filmai.in/uzeik-6490.html :D
[...] transparency the new objectivity as David Weinberger [...]
[...] opinions and privately process information. As David Weinberger says in triumphant Hayekian style, “transparency is the new objectivity.” In some instances, consumer perspectives may form the basis of action – demanding change if [...]
[...] dei link, per esempio) come nuova forma di oggettività. Spiegava Weinberger recentemente in un post sul suo Joho the Blog: Objectivity used be presented as a stopping point for belief: If the source is objective and [...]
[...] this way Chabon joins the post-Cluetrain throng, carrying the banner saying “transparency is the new objectivity.” In this cultural norm, one’s voice is more credible if one discloses one’s [...]
[...] Because we are realizing–as David Weinberger put it–that lots of things we thought were property of news were really just properties of paper, or [...]
Thanx for the valuable information. This was just the thing I was looking for, actually I think this is part of what is making blogs more and more viable as news sources. keep posting. Will be visiting back soon.
[...] we first talked about it, David Weinberger wrote a post about his maxim: Transparency is the new objectivity. Key principle in a rebooted system of [...]
[...] Not exactly a quote but wisdom distilled from an ironically anonymous July blog post at hyperorg.com. The post is summarised in the title “transparency is the new objectivity”. The claim of [...]
[...] where we’re coming from” is more likely to be trusted than the View from Nowhere. (Link) http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/07/19/transparency-is-the-new-objectivity/ 9. The hybrid forms will be the strongest forms. (Link) [...]
[...] and would be undesired. And moving on, to use the words I had seen in a totally different context (link), would transparency be (or subsume) [...]
[...] consumers of media follow bylines, not masthead. To borrow David Weinberger’s phrase, “transparency is the new objectivity.” By showing readers how and where the audience was sourced in real-time, media organizations [...]
[...] Weinberger declares transparency to be the new objectivity: ?Objectivity used be presented as a stopping point for belief: If the source is objective and [...]
[...] 8. “Here’s where we’re coming from” is more likely to be trusted than the View from Nowhere. (Link) [...]
[...] “Here’s where we’re coming from” is more likely to be trusted than the View from Nowhere. (Link) [...]
[...] transparency is the new objectivity — more than our finished product must be [...]
Just a bunch of empty words- a salad for the hypocrites.
Who cares about all that BS?
To belive or to know?
Educated Hoi Polloi…
Thank you for being a herd!
[...] Where it came from: The phrase was originated by technology philosopher David Weinberger, who first said it in a lecture in Toronto on Oct. 23, 2008. He further defined the idea and put the phrase to writing in a July 19, 2009, post at his blog. [...]
[...] mind. Since then, I’ve read many more arguments for why objectivity is outdated, including a spate of 2009 posts. (Obligatory caveat: Good intentions and common sense underpin the objectivity [...]
[...] Where it came from: The phrase was originated by technology philosopher David Weinberger, who first said it in a lecture in Toronto on Oct. 23, 2008. He further defined the idea and put the phrase to writing in a July 19, 2009, post at his blog. [...]
[...] Ήταν η στάση του Arrington αποτέλεσμα περισσότερο μιας προσωπικής ηθικής? Καθόλου, κατά τη γνώμη μου. Περιστατικά σαν αυτό που αποκάλυψε ο Arrington δεν είναι μεμονωμένα. Όλοι η σημαντικοί bloggers και εκδότες του Internet έχουν δώσει τα τελευταία χρόνια μεγάλο βάρος στον τομέα της αξιοπιστίας και διαφάνειας. Επιτομή αυτής της σκέψης είναι το άρθρο του David Wineberger “η διαφάνεια είναι η νέα αντικειμενικότητα“. [...]
The message is old, just saw it. I do not know how it was missed by me but it is very seriously…