How do you feel about full disclosure?

I know there are too many differnet situations and differenct personalities to have one simple answer. But in general when you read an article and the author gives ‘full disclosure,’ and admits to having something to do with a part of the story, does that make you trust the author more or do you become weary do to the link?

I was reading the Globe the other day and the author of an article had writeen an article on NPR, then admits in nice polite brackets that several years ago he applied for a job with them and was not hired. I thought to myself, Well that really doesn’t change my view on this article, especially since it seemed more editorial than actual reporting.

So, I know full disclosure is a very important part of journalism and reporting the facts, but when someone admits to having a tie to the story, is it honest reporting by an honest guy, or do you read into hidden agendas even more?

In the securities industry, it is standard to state if you have a position in a company you’re talking about.

This makes sense. A stock recommended on CNBC will likely see a quick spike upwards.

In other situations, it drives me nuts. Every time CNN mentions something about Time Warner, they always mention that Time Warner is the parent company of CNN. It isn’t relevant most of the time and I think we could do without it.

I think it’s better to put it in and have the reader decide whether or not any disclosure is relevant. Further, something may not be apparent from just one article, but evident once you’ve read the whole series or become familiar with the author’s style or whatever, and you may then change your mind as to whether the disclosure is relevant.