Disclosure for Journalists

"I can think of three reasons why you wouldn't want to do that, judge."
--Billy Ray Valentine (Trading Places)

In the financial services sector it is common practice to have pundits, analysts, et al disclose any positions they have in the securities they discuss. By doing so, consumers of financial information are made more aware of potential biases in the people generating such information. Those biases might slant the information to be consumed in some way.

Why aren't similar practices adopted by the media--particularly those reporting on political issues? Isn't it reasonable to have journalists disclose their political affiliations and contributions so that readers are more aware of potential for bias and slant in the information that they consume?

Perhaps, but I can think of at least three reasons why such disclosure is unlikely. One is that it would quickly reveal just how tilted the entire profession is to the left. Although this tilt has been recognized by many for some time, there are still those who want to believe that their sources of information are objective. Overt political disclosure by those generating the information would destroy this fantasy.

Another is that customers are likely to be lost if journalists subsequently attempt to compensate for their biases by actually producing more balanced content. A large market for bias exists, and followers will defect if their preference for bias is not satisfied.

A third reason is that journalists might realize, per core tenets of signaling theory, that the only time that consumers of information will view their information as credible is when they report a) negatively about friendly political entities (as suggested by their political disclosure) or b) positively about political opponents.

That thought is most unpalatable to an interested media.