Walking the walk on transparency

Explore Harvard's Nieman network Nieman Fellowships Nieman Lab Nieman Reports Nieman Storyboard

Nick Denton says Gizmodo's new design focus is aimed at taking advantage of Gawker's discussion platform, Kinja. nie.mn/18QzLAz

Pushing to the future of journalism — A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

Oct. 16, 2009, 9 a.m.

Walking the walk on transparency

By Mathew Ingram

Openness and transparency and all of those wonderful attributes are easy to defend in the abstract, but the real test of our commitment to them comes when we try to implement them in a specific, real-world case. I found myself in that situation Thursday, after one of our web editors wrote a rather forceful post on our Books blog at globeandmail.com, a post that several other senior editors felt crossed a number of important boundaries in terms of professional behavior.

The post (which you can read in full at this blog, which grabbed a copy shortly after it appeared) was about search engine optimization or SEO, which we had just had an internal workshop about. The writer, our online Books editor, said he felt the workshop placed too much emphasis on writing what he believed to be boring headlines in order to please search “robots,” and he promised to only write boring headlines in the future. He also made a number of disparaging personal remarks about the man who gave the workshop, a respected journalism teacher.

After someone noticed the post, it was quickly removed. When I found out about it, I said that I was troubled by that response, and that I felt we should say something about why it was taken down — especially since at least one blogger and several people on Twitter had noticed it was no longer online. The initial response, however, was to not say anything about the removal, with the rationale — one that I have heard many times in the past — being that a response from us would simply give the incident legs.

After some discussion with senior editors, we decided a response would be a good idea, and that I should write a blog post about why we removed it, include a comment from the editor of globeandmail.com, and then post a link to it at the blog that had mentioned the removal — all of which I did. In the post, I pointed out that we hadn’t removed the post because of Peter’s negative comments about SEO (as some suspected) but because the Books blog wasn’t an appropriate forum for that discussion. (The personal comments about an invited guest were also offside, I think.)

My argument was twofold. By not responding, I argued that we were ignoring a conversation in which we should be taking part. And by removing something without explaining why, I argued that we were effectively breaching our trust with readers, in however small a way. While an editor slamming his own organization might be damaging to our brand, I argued that the trust of our readers was also a key part of our brand, and that we had to do everything we could to maintain it. That, I think, is the fundamental purpose of being open and honest in the first place. Trust, as Craig Newmark has said, is “the new black.”

I realize this is hardly in the same league as The New York Times debating whether to publish information about kidnapped reporters, or The Washington Post censuring editors for posting their opinions on Twitter, but I think the principle is still an important one. Readers deserve to be told what we are doing and why (within reason), even when doing so makes us uncomfortable. I’m glad we were able to do that in this case, and I hope we can continue doing it.

Photo by Gisela Giardino used under a Creative Commons license.

What to read next

Mark Coddington May 17, 2013

This Week in Review, Spy vs. Spy edition: Backlash against snooping by DOJ and Bloomberg

Plus: New developments in online video, The New Yorker’s Strongbox leak submission system, and the rest of the week’s future-of-news news.

http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com JennaMcWilliams

I think this was beautifully handled. Transparency, after all, is pretty cool to talk about but harder to embody, especially when things get icky.

I feel for the writer of the original post–it’s a new game we’re playing now, one in which engaging ideas, developed quickly and circulated immediately, rule the day. Quick reactions aren’t always the most politic.

We see this issue playing out in different ways across the increasingly many-to-many communication platforms, wherein everybody clamors to say something first, everybody clamors to get–and hold–readers’ attention. One really good way to do this is to say something scandalous. That in itself isn’t a bad thing; but it means we have to learn how to support our scandalous ideas with strong arguments, made intelligently.
http://www.mathewingram.com/work Mathew Ingram

Thanks for the comment, Jenna. It is definitely a new game, and to some extent we are making up the rules as we go. That can make it difficult, especially when things are moving quickly — but at least it keeps it interesting :-)
http://digitalize.ca Mo Jangda

I agree that the books blog isn’t really a place to talk about SEO but the topic and (some of the) information presented in the post still seems pertinent to Globe readers.

Was there any discussion around potentially moving the post and subsequent discussion to another Globe property that may be have more suited for the content (possibly as a guest post on Ingram 2.0)?
Andrew

It’s amusing that considering all your recent comments about impartiality being obsolete, you think a couple of well-written and well-deserved comments about the professor are “offside.”

you guys got this one wrong on both parts: a blog from the online books editor, in the online books section, about how to write book reviews online is definitely appropriate; and the removal is a sign of a continuing habit by old-school media (of which you are a part, don’t kid yourself) of “do what we say, not what we do.”
Marc Matteo

No, transparency is not hard to embody. The G&M should have simply left the post up. Done.

Perhaps they should have censored the editor in question some way, or used this incident as a catalyst to implement some form of second or copy editing on their blogs. But taking the post down was wrong.

It was also pointless, as stated the post is still out there, taking it back is what gave it “legs”.

Another question: Did anyone take the book editor’s words to heart, or did they get lost in all this?
http://www.mathewingram.com/work Mathew Ingram

@Mo — we have talked, and continue to talk, about moving the SEO discussion somewhere so that we can continue the debate around the issues mentioned in Peter’s post. I think he raised some points that need to be addressed.

@Andrew — I said that I thought objectivity was obsolete, not good manners. Using our platform to insult someone we invited to speak is just rude. And the books blog is for discussions about books, not about internal Globe matters.

@Marc — If it had been up to me, I would have left the post up and had Peter or someone else respond to or update it. Once it was gone, I thought the way we handled it was the best option available. And yes, the SEO discussion is continuing.
http://editor.blogspot.com Howard Weaver

What Marc Matteo said.

Editors seem far too much nuance in these matters. While some things remains out of bounds (or, north of the border, offside) those are the rare exceptions.
http://editor.blogspot.com Howard Weaver

I wish I could type.

Editors “see” way too much, not “seem” way too much. Sorry for the sloppiness.
http://www.fishbane.com Matthew @mattnycs

A similar incident occurred at the Virginia Quarterly Review in 2008. Editor Ted Genoways posted what was intended to be a behind-the-scenes account of how the manuscript readers deal with submissions. Instead, some readers took offense. The “anonymized snippets from internal correspondence regarding our submissions” were removed, and this was followed by an explanatory post:
http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2008/05/05/a-response-to/

Maybe they should have left the offending material up? Like for you, the explanation then skirts around the hole left by the removal. People who failed to catch the initial post are left wondering what the fuss is about, or have to take it on faith that it was offensive. This is the line, right?
http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ Joe Clark

Why does a newspaper hire columnists if they are barred from offering the opinion that a paid consultant is full of shit?

Quick, Mathew, if you can take a moment out of your busy day managing the for-profit conference that conflicts with your ostensible day job: What is the appropriate forum to articulate any kind of objection to nonsensical advice from a consultant? There isn’t one, right? (All you can manage so far is that a company blog is no place to discuss company business. What is right place? Specify it exactly, please.)
http://www.grumpybrit.com simon billing

Intelligently and sensitively handled. In particular choosing not to publish yourselves but providing a link to the writer’s blog maintains The Globe’s institutional integrity (which is its own business) while retaining complete transparency (which is its duty to the public).

As a reader, I applaud.
http://www.mathewingram.com/work Mathew Ingram

Thanks, Simon.

And Joe, the proper forum to discuss internal matters is an internal one — a lunch, a coffee, a meeting, etc.

P.S. Please feel free to take your trolling comments about me elsewhere.
http://neilsanderson.com Neil Sanderson

We’re in deep trouble when senior editors of a major news organization decide they don’t want to give “legs” to an issue that their readers care about.

I’m glad Mathew was able to convince them that an explanation was warranted, but it should have been automatic when the item was removed. This incident has to cause some readers to doubt the Globe’s integrity.

And the book editor’s view that he should not need to offer search-friendly headlines on web versions of his book reviews? I’m sure the Globe’s competitors would love to see that.
bmo

limping through translucency, at best.
http://www.reinventingthenewsroom.com Jason Fry

I would have kept up the post, personally.

I bet a lot of readers in the community that’s (hopefully) sprung up around the books blog would have found it a worthy debate — and it was an appropriate place, given that the subject is those readers’ experience with the paper and (again, hopefully) their daily habits. And isn’t one of the key cultural shifts of new media that reporters and editors no longer stand aloof from readers? A little bristliness is OK as part of that.

And I think the consultant could have handled it just fine. Anyone who works in this area knows some slings and arrows will come his or her way. If you can’t take ‘em, you’re in the wrong business.

That said, I’m not surprised the post got taken down, big papers being what they are, and I think you handled it pretty well from that point forward. Having been stuck with a lemon, you made pretty good lemonade.
http://www.mathewingram.com/work Mathew Ingram

Thanks for the comment, Neil — those doubts are one of the big reasons I wanted to do it in the first place.

And Jason, as I said before, if it was up to me I would have left the post as it was. I wish we weren’t quite so thin-skinned about criticism, whether internal or external, but it is what it is.
Bentham

@Joe Clark – are you ever not an asshole? Chill out already.

I agree with Neil– when the post was taken down editors should have had a statement prepared regarding their rationale.
Pingback: Ethics of social media for journalists | Save the Media