Journalists and political leaning: Divulge the secret?

Howard Kurtz wrote on one of my pet subjects.  Go, Howard.

It's about time that most mainstream journalists admitted they are Democrats.
That argument comes not from some rabid right-winger but from Mika Brzezinski, the co-host of "Morning Joe" and the daughter of Jimmy Carter's national security adviser.

I may have been the rabid right-winger.  But let's hear Kurtz explain Brzezinski's view:

In an interview with WNBC's Julie Menin, Brzezinski, who's promoting her book "All Things At Once," says it's time to "stop pretending. . . . Every journalist should tell us what their political affiliation is," and which candidates they have voted for.
Denizens of the MSM try to be objective, she says, but have "got a liberal point of view. The balance is not there." Otherwise, viewers can be "duped."

Or readers.  I think of the folks who take PolitiFact fact checks as gospel, unaware of the institutional bias that colors them.  She has a point.  Kurtz, on the other hand, has reservations:

I have a bit more confidence than Mika in the ability of many (but not all) of my colleagues to keep their opinions out of their work. And her argument that this lack of transparency has fueled the extreme movements on both sides isn't terribly persuasive. ("That's why we have Fox," she says. And MSNBC prime time?)

Kurtz tends to write excellent content, but there is no way to totally eliminate bias in reporting.  The best reporters, in terms of objectivity, have the least bias in their work.  But reporters who include a substantial and noticeable degree of bias are common.  It comes out in the choice of content and in the choice of words.  I would emphasize that it is irrelevant whether some or even many reporters can write so that their bias is virtually undetectable.  That isn't a reason to keep political leanings a secret.  It is a rationalization substituted for the real reason the political affiliation of reporters is either secret or even discouraged by their employers:  It is thought to affect the bottom line.  Yes, that's right.  Money.

Objective journalism grew out of two cultural phenomena.  One was the scientific revolution.  We tried applying science to everything--and why not news reporting?  Before the 20th century, news was partisan, and newpapers were often financed by political parties.  But the practice of objective journalism afforded the opportunity to sell newspapers to audiences from more than one party.  Thus, adopting the objective news format could increase circulation and ad sales.

The world has changed since those times.

The imprint of Modernity has faded a bit.  We no longer view science as the be-all and end-all.  Postmodernism grew up through cracks in the pavement and flourished.  In American politics, polarization has increased radically.  Roger Ailes detected the changes in the market and Fox News was born.  Did polarization lead to Fox or is Fox a primary cause of polarization?  An argument might be made for either, but my money is on the former.

With all these changes, the rationale for keeping political affiliations a secret has eroded.  Sticking to the objective paradigm probably does not help newspapers sell in the current polarized climate.  And people are too jaded to expect a scientific outlook in the journalism they consume.

To top it off, divulging political affiliation dovetails with the mission of journalism:  Informing the public.  Newspapers tell secrets all the time.  This secret is not that special and, as Brzezinski points out, it can ultimately harm the journalistic enterprise.

 Mika's right, Howard.