Lately, media bloggers seem to have gone on a philosophical quest: they are all desperately seeking the meaning of journalism. No one has quite decided to head off into the desert and fast until they have an epiphany, but surely that can't be far off. Nieman Lab, BuzzMachine and GigaOm have all run pieces discussing the nature and future of journalism.

What prompted all this serious en masse soul searching?

Well, the current TechCrunch confusion is partly to blame.

Begin the debate about objectivity v transparency in journalism:

As C.W. Anderson of Nieman Lab points out, objectivity is a standard that journalists cling to - there is no ideology attached and therefore no bias. The troubling thing about objectivity as a journalistic perspective is that it is pretty much impossible to achieve.

Journalists are only human. Much as a writer can try and keep their own opinions out of their being completely objective and entirely neutral is far more complicated that simply avoiding the phrase 'personally, I think that...'

On a basic level, it's hard to say that journalists simply present information for readers,so that they can form their own judgements, because even the fact that the information is being presented second hand - via a news platform - means that the way in which a journalist has gathered, collated and described a certain situation will inevitably affect the readers perception. It can't be avoided.

So, is transparency the next major wave of journalistic ideology?

Mike Arrington certainly seems to think so, particularly judging by this Twitter-bicker between himself and a New York Times Editor, Patrick LaForge. It's this transparency that Arrington feels removes any potential conflict of interests in his own business TechCrunch. He feels that despite investing in tech companies and (formerly) owning a very powerful website that writes about such products, as long as he is honest about it and doesn't limit the scope of his journalists, everything is ok.

Is that acceptable? Perhaps this is where the idea of transparency falls down: is it enough to say 'I'm an honest guy, you can trust me' and expect ethical dilemmas to disappear? Effectively, what Arrington is arguing is that as long as these conflicts of interests are disclosed and in the public arena, there is no problem; someone will call him on it if things get out of hand and start to lean towards the unethical, right?

It's interesting, though, that Arrington has called for the re-instatement of editorial independence at TechCrunch - with or without him; As he stated on the website yesterday: "the only issue that matters, is TechCrunch editorial independence and self determination. Regardless of my role, if any, going forward."

It would seems that a policy of transparency isn't simply a means to ease concerns about his own apparent conflict of interests, he simply wants to protect the unfettered (non) editorial policy at TechCrunch. Even though Arrington has never officially branded himself a journalist, he certainly seems to care a lot about finding the meaning - and the method - of good journalism.

Sources: BuzzMachine, Editors Weblog, GigaOm, Nieman lab, Parislemon.com, TechCrunch (1) , (2) , Twitter: ParisLemon,