Transparency for thee but not for me

Alex Wong/Getty Images News

The Scooter Libby trial dramatically illustrated that all is not well in the Bush administration and in Washington power politics in general. But it also showed how little most of mainstream media care about transparency, despite frequent calls from media organizations for greater accountability and openness from public officials. During the Libby saga, not only were journalists reluctant to say what they knew and how they knew it, but their news organizations were also loathe to admit mistakes and seemingly couldn’t bear going public with their internal staff and reporting guidelines.

A new study out from the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda measures just how candid media are about what they do and how they do it. ICMPA's newest study looks at 25 of the world's top news sites to see which ones correct their errors, are open about their journalistic standards, and welcome reader comments and criticism.

Which were the best?

• The Guardian
• The New York Times
• The Christian Science Monitor
• National Public Radio

Which were among the worst?

• Time magazine
• Al Jazeera
• CNN
• The Economist

Most news sites have bought into the concept of allowing readers to make comments about news coverage. But while interactivity has become a must-have component of websites, the distinct impression left by many outlets is that their interactivity is engineered for stickiness rather than as an honest effort to log readers’ complaints. Evidence for that? Only six news outlets studied have ombudsmen (or their equivalent)—all newspapers, with the exception of National Public Radio. And even more striking, nine of the 25 sites have no provision for visitors to write letters to the editor—effectively all of the broadcast outlets, with CNN and PRI's "The World" being exceptions.

The greatest surprise of the study was how most news outlets handle corrections. Only 11 out of the 25 news sites visibly post corrections, and again, it was broadcast media that have a particularly poor track record, including news outlets—such as CBS News—that have been burned by their inadequate responses to mistakes found in their reporting in the past.

Now it's true that media transparency doesn't ensure that individual reporters will always be honest brokers of information—as Jayson Blair and Judith Miller taught the New York Times. But a news outlet's commitment to being transparent helps its visitors understand the judgments made by the news operation and gives those visitors a venue for complaints and criticism when something goes awry. Ultimately—if not immediately—transparency leads to accountability. And accountability leads to credibility.

Take a look at the full study here, including details for each of the 25 news outlets.

Susan Moeller is director of ICMPA and associate professor at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism and School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park.