Jeff Jarvis gives his take on Chris Anderson‘s idea of radical transparency for journalism. I’m not so convinced.

I’ve seen radical transparency before. Remember restaurants in the 1990s? Everywhere you went you could see into the kitchen. Instead of your meal emerging from a pair of swing doors, you could see dinner taking shape amid a clashing stainless steel world of sous chefs and saucepans. That was radical transparency for food. Fashion moves on. It’s not always necessary or practical to see everystage of the process that brings our food to the table, and I’d say the same goes for journalism. What you want to know is that there are processes and standards in place to ensure that what you’re getting is what you think you’re getting.

I’m content with a method like the one CBS News employs for displaying its editorial innards. On the Public Eye site the other day, viewers were asked to rank the inquiry into Princess Diana‘s death against Senator Tim Johnson‘s surgery (consequences of which could flip the balance of power in the Senate).

In the event, it wasn’t Diana report that came in second, but an English crime hunt – possible leads in the hunt for the murderer/s dubbed the Suffolk strangler. Even with the pound doing this well against the dollar, the ease of long-haul air travel and the attractions of Christmas shopping, the ‘strangler’ is unlikely to threaten anyone from Manhattan to Marin County. But news doesn’t work like that…

When accidents happen and controversy calls, we want accountability. When decisions are made, sometimes they just need making. We can make our call with our subscription or our attention. Radical transparency? No thanks.