Total, complete, and repetitive journalistic transparency probably isn't as necessary as Hewitt suggests. He laments that Kos's disclosure was inadequate... but I disagree. Kos put his readers on notice. From what he wrote, the reader should have been able to discern how much of Kos' opinion is worthy. In fact, the reader should be able to do that without the disclosure.
Journalism doesn't take place in a void - the reader/viewer has a role too. If the reader is careless, non-thinking, and inattentive, their conclusions are likely to be wrong no matter what the writer discloses.
The troubling part of Kos's disclosure is where he states there were candidates who did not want anyone to know he was working for them. THAT, I have a problem with. What were they ashamed of? Kos? Well, maybe. But the point is that the candidate was actively trying to hide an affiliation. That Kos went along with it speaks to his ethical ideals, but those show themselves in his writing anyway.
The Armstrong Williams case is quite a bit different with the biggest problem being where the money came from. I consider the Dept. of Education to be at much greater fault that Williams (though his subsequent statements have shown him to be a fool). We have, as citizens, a right to know when it's the official government line we're reading. Whether Williams or I or anyone else agrees with it is irrelevant. The backlash from Williams' cupidity and the Education department's probably illegal stupidity to people like Michelle Malkin is appalling.
Consider that this backlash is coming from readers who apparently think they must have placed in front of them all the details about a writer's life and who pays them before they can decide whether they agree or disagree with what's written.
No amount of disclosure is going to help those folks.
But no matter who pays Kos, or Armstrong, or Hewitt - I'm capable of reading their works and deciding for myself whether their opinions have merit. If I don't think critically about what I read, does it matter who wrote it or if anyone paid them to do it?
Hewitt writes:
Tell me who is paying you, and tell me what you think about the world in general, and I can read the green.
Since he's painted himself into this total transparency corner, he almost has to state it's necessary for Hewitt, the reader, to receive fully transparent disclosure in order to fully understand or critique an article. Otherwise, he would sound elitist.
Then there's the problem of whether he's the kettle or the pot. If Hewitt, the writer, is going to be as transparent as he wants everyone else to be then shouldn't his disclaimer be permanent at the top of his blog above the book ads. And he needs to include what church he goes to and how often... Certainly he wants a prospective reader to know everything about him before considering a purchase of one of his books... doesn't he?
I think Hewitt has some good thoughts and great insights on some topics, but his overly dramatic, feverish insistence on total and absolute transparency is becoming sanctimoniously tedious.
UPDATE: More on Kos' role for the Dean Campaign
UPDATE: More from Zephyr Teachout
UPDATE: Bigwig has a better idea - Readers Beware (on a similar theme to my thinking, but said so much better). And, dang it, perhaps I wasn't all that polite above, but it is my honest reaction.
And yet another UPDATE: Blogging for Dollars, (via LGF)Slate's Chris Suellentrop:
The hanging offense is that Moulitsas took money from other, undisclosed, political clients. And while he may have disclosed—in 2003—that he wouldn't disclose them, that's not good enough. DailyKos raised money for a dozen congressional candidates this past election. Which, if any, of them paid Moulitsas for the honor of directing his grassroots minions to part with their wallets? If you gave one of Moulitsas' preferred candidates money, wouldn't you like to know if Moulitsas' endorsement was purchased?
