Articles

In a research article in Journalism Studies, Jacob L. Nelson and Seth C. Lewis argue that transparency alone cannot rebuild trust; news organisations must adopt capital transparency, which includes openly addressing profit motives and acknowledging tensions between financial interests and public service.

Trust in journalism has declined sharply worldwide, making it harder for people to stay informed and for news organisations to sustain themselves. In response, audiences increasingly turn to their own forms of “fact-checking,” often reinforcing existing beliefs and deepening exposure to misinformation. While transparency in reporting processes has been promoted as a remedy, its impact remains limited because it does not address a central concern: the perception that journalism is driven more by profit than public interest.

Public attitudes range from healthy scepticism, which encourages critical engagement, to corrosive cynicism, which dismisses journalism altogether. This shift towards cynicism is fuelled by beliefs that journalists are influenced by political bias and, increasingly, by economic pressures. Many people suspect that news is shaped to attract attention and generate revenue, a concern not entirely unfounded given the growing entanglement of editorial and commercial priorities.

Although distrust is influenced by broader social and psychological factors, perceptions of journalists’ competing interests play a significant role. Rebuilding trust therefore requires acknowledging these tensions openly and demonstrating that professional integrity can coexist with financial realities, rather than denying the pressures that shape news production.

The idea that greater transparency can restore trust in journalism has gained wide support, especially as news organisations face growing scepticism and accusations of bias or “fake news.” Transparency typically involves explaining how stories are selected, how reporting decisions are made, how journalists interact with audiences, and how errors are corrected. The underlying belief is that by opening up these processes, news organisations can demonstrate accountability and reinforce their credibility. Many outlets have embraced this approach, publishing explanations of their reporting methods and editorial guidelines to rebuild their relationship with the public.

However, research has consistently shown that these efforts have had little or no meaningful effect on public trust. In some cases, transparency produces only modest improvements, and in others it can even deepen scepticism. Several explanations help account for this. Audiences may simply not encounter transparency efforts, particularly as news consumption shifts to social media, where such explanations are less visible. Furthermore, those who already distrust journalism may dismiss transparency as self-serving or insincere. There is also the risk that transparency is used strategically, revealing only favourable aspects of journalistic practice while concealing more problematic elements, which can make it resemble a form of promotion rather than genuine openness.

A more fundamental limitation is that current transparency efforts focus almost entirely on how journalism is produced, while neglecting a key source of distrust: the perception that news organisations prioritise profit over truth or public service. This is where the concept of capital transparency becomes central.

Capital transparency calls for openness about the financial structures underpinning journalism, including ownership, funding sources, and the economic pressures shaping editorial decisions. By revealing how money influences news production, journalists can address suspicions that otherwise are left unchallenged.

This approach goes beyond routine disclosures, encouraging journalists and organisations to explain how they maintain independence despite financial constraints and potential conflicts of interest. It may involve acknowledging the limits of the traditional “firewall” between editorial and business operations and being open about instances where that boundary is strained.

While such honesty could expose uncomfortable realities and may not improve trust in the industry as a whole, it has the potential to build credibility at the level of journalists, distinguish genuinely public-serving outlets from those driven primarily by profit, and consequently, improve public trust in public interest journalism.

Nelson, J. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2026). Show Them the Money: The Case for Capital Transparency in Journalism. Journalism Studies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2026.2655667