An Op-Ed appeared earlier this month on PBS MediaShift that seemed to describe a civic-minded endeavor aimed at increasing awareness of who on the nation's editorial commentary pages was trying to influence public opinion.

"Every day, Americans read the opinion and commentary of seemingly impartial 'experts' from think tanks on critical subjects in the pages of the nation's newspapers," wrote Gabe Elsner.

"What these readers don't know is that the authors of these opinion pieces work for think tanks and organizations funded by the same industries they are 'impartially' writing about," Elsner wrote.

Being the editor of the editorial page of a major American daily, I was struck by several things upon reading Eisner's introduction. For one thing, his opening sentences set up a straw man by claiming that "authors of opinion pieces" claim to be writing "impartially."

But authors appearing on opinion pages are by definition writing as advocates, not as impartial voices, so I had to wonder what Elsner was really up to.

Problem with Elsner's Bio

My suspicions were heightened considerably when I read the tagline at the end of his piece where Op-Ed authors customarily describe themselves.

Elsner described himself as "a public interest advocate based in Washington, D.C. For the past five years, he has worked with a variety of non-profit organizations to elevate the voice of ordinary people in policy debates."

Note the absence there of an organizational affiliation. A little further on in the tagline, Elsner said he "joined the "Checks and Balances Project," but provided no identifying information about the organization, except to say that it exists "to help increase transparency and inform the public on critical issues, especially related to energy."

He also didn't say that he is listed on the Checks and Balances Project as its deputy director.

Three days after his Op-Ed first appeared on MediaShift, Elsner responded to a comment noting his lack of transparency about himself by appending a longer tagline.

There he described himself as having led a group opposed to California's Proposition 23, which he said "was funded by Big Oil companies." He also listed other activities in which he supposedly led student lobbying efforts in California and Washington, D.C.

He also said the Checks and Balances Project is funded by "the New Venture Fund" and "several foundations." Note the lack of names for the latter organizations.

Why the Ambiguity in His Ties?

What made all of this notable was that these verbal gymnastics about Elsner appeared in an Op-Ed in which he argued that opinion page editors should "ask a basic question of anyone publishing opinions on their pages regarding financial conflicts of interest -- and then tell readers about the conflicts."

But if that's what Elsner thinks, I wondered, why the ambiguity about his own ties? So I did some digging to learn more about him and the obscure Checks and Balances Project.

Turns out that the Checks and Balances Project is indeed funded by the New Venture Fund, but guess who funds the New Venture Fund? One of its funders is the Big Green power, the Sierra Club, which spends millions of dollars every year trying to stop oil and gas industry exploration, drilling and production across America.

Other grants to New Venture Fund came from the David and Lucille Packard Foundation for "conservation and science," the Wilburforce Foundation for "Responsible Trails America," and the Azby Fund of New Orleans for "civic projects."

One of the Packard grants was to "finance efforts to protect public lands on the Colorado Plateau threatened by oil and gas development and to provide support to tribal entities in their efforts to transition away from fossil fuels."

Azby, incidentally, is a private foundation that receives millions of dollars in income from investments in energy companies, which is then given in grants mainly to local Louisiana charities, including numerous environmental groups like the Garden Conservancy.

As for the Wilburforce Foundation, it gives millions of dollars in annual grants to a veritable who's who of Big Green activists groups large and small, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Earth Justice, Greenpeace and the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, among many, many others.

No stance on energy?

In other words, Elsner was writing on behalf of an organization -- the Checks and Balances Project -- that is a front group for anti oil and gas, pro Big Green environmental activism.

Interestingly, when the Columbia Journalism Review's (CJR) Craig Silverman asked Elsner if his group has a stance on energy issues, his response was: "We don't have a stance on energy policy."

But that's not all. The Checks and Balances Project established yet a third front group, TrueTies.org, to rally public support for greater transparency from authors like ... Elsner about their financial support!

I'm thinking now that you won't be surprised to learn that not a word appears on the TrueTies.org web site under its "About" entry regarding its funding.

Nor will you be surprised to know that the New Venture Fund acknowledges on its IRS 990 tax return to spending thousands of dollars on direct and indirect lobbying of government officials on environmental issues.

And it probably won't raise your eyebrows a nanometer to discover that, according to CJR's Silverman, among the directors of New Venture Fund is one P.J. Simmons, who was deputy chairman of the Clinton Global Initiative for energy and climate change.

Left-Wing Hypocrisy

Bottom line? Left-wing activist kettles like Elsner have no business calling right-wing advocate pots black.

I wonder if the 50 journalists -- five of whom identified themselves with the Society for Professional Journalists -- who signed a TrueTies.org letter to the New York Times endorsing the demand for Op-Ed page transparency were aware when they signed the letter of the hypocrisy behind the campaign or Elsner's prevarication about his group's stance on energy issues?

I'm guessing it wouldn't make any difference if they did.

Mark Tapscott is editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner, where this post originally appeared. http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/10/lefty-activist-demands-oped-transparency

At least not until this proud editorialist gets another job, that is! Actually, after reading the case for abolishing traditional editorials presented by the always interesting Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine.com, I have to nod my head in agreement with much of what he says even as I vigorously disagree with his marquee assertion.

Jeff says this:

"Embrace new voices and viewpoints. Listen before lecturing. Break free of the limits of paper and use the Internet to create a limitless platform for experts to inform the discussion. Become moderators and enablers of the debate that is already going on in the community. In short: Join the conversation."

I agree. In fact, that is an excellent summary statement of what I am trying to do with the editorial section I oversee at The Washington Examiner. It's not happening nearly as quickly as I would like but then I suspect Jeff and I are rather a lot alike temperamentally. The WECAN project I discussed in this space yesterday is an illustration of one approach to a newspaper being a moderator and an enabler of others in the community to come together to share experience, insight and expertise in search of solutions to community problems.

Jeff also says this:

"Rather than one cold voice of the institution, shouldn't they try to gather many new voices and viewpoints? Instead of one opinion from on high, wouldn't it be more useful to an informed society to share the best arguments around issues so we, the people, can make better decisions?"

And again I agree. Gathering "many new voices and viewpoints" was the purpose behind my creating The Washington Examiner Blog Board of contributors, which includes a dozen of the best bloggers representing a broad cross section of opinion on the Blogosphere. Among the dozen are such disparate voices as Dan Gillmor, Bob Cox, Jeralyn Merritt, Ed Morrissey and Lorie Byrd. Every Tuesday and Thursday (and sometimes more frequently), Examiner readers get a piece written exclusively for the paper on a current topic. These pieces are consistently among the Top 10 most well-read features in the paper.

But the conclusion Jeff reaches (he actually states it at the outset of his post) is this:

In this age of open media, when every voice and viewpoint can be heard, when news is analyzed and overanalyzed, and when we certainly are not suffering a shortage of opinion, do we need editorialists?

No. I leave it to you to argue whether we ever did. But there can be no question that, as the rest of media and journalism go through wrenching change and -- I hope -- radical reexamination, so should the editorialists reconsider their roles.

But wait, is Jeff's conclusion that we should kill all the lawyers and the editorialists? Or is it that editorialsts had better start looking at their jobs in an entirely new and different way? Jeff is a shrewd writer. Note that he lures us into his post with a provocative question and answer, then proceeds to explain why his declaration doesn't actually admit of such a conclusive answer.

I don't see any difference on one level between a well-written editorial that makes people of differing views think more carefully about their positions than a blog post that does the same thing. The significant difference is the openness to dialogue that accompanies both. Jeff is absolutely right that the day is long past for Olympian editorial pronouncements from on high by The New York Times or my friends down the way a bit on 15th Street here in D.C., or even by The Washington Examiner, correct and wise though the latter would undoubtedly be! The reality is that smart editorialists realize they have no choice now but to listen and participate in the discussion, not seek to rise above it, manipulate it or otherwise direct it. We are participants, not censors.

That said, despite all the truths embodied in Gillmor's maxim that news is no longer a lecture but a dialogue and the consequent necessity for editorialists to engage discussion, not end it, the role of editorialist remains a vital one. Why? Because he or she gets what most others in the conversation don't -- namely, a regular paycheck to study, think, listen and write about issues others care about or are discussing.

Even in the Internet age, the vast majority of folks with something to say in cyberspace spend most of their time making a living and living their lives. The issues of the day aren't their first concerns, nor should they be. Editorialists on the other hand make their living doing that thinking/listening/studying/writing thing. Taken seriously and carried out in an intellectually honest manner, such a role ought to carry some weight.

Whether as mere conversation starter, discussion referee or assessor of others' positions and policies, the editorialist fulfills a function that is even more important as the parties to the public policy discussions expand in number and volume.

And because there is no longer anything remotely resembling a media monopoly, the editorialist succeeds by enabling more independent discussion, analyses and participation and by always remembering that, as Jeff says, "smart opinions are not delivered fully formed; they are enriched by the conversation."

One of the biggest reasons I can't wait to get to the newsroom most mornings is the WECAN project --- the Washington Examiner Community Action Network. This project is barely in its infancy but is worth watching because it combines elements of citizen media and open-source journalism, with a semi-traditional daily newspaper.

The heart of WECAN is seen in a little book, "The Wisdom of Crowds" by New Yorker business writer James Surowiecki who focuses on a key principle underlying the immense power of the Internet: No one of us is as smart, experienced or skillful as all of us together. The Internet lets us focus collective talent and knowledge on a particular problem simultaneously.

Here's how a recent Examiner editorial announcing the posting of two new databases, employee compensation for Washington's Metro system and the City of Alexandria, explained WECAN:

"By putting databases and other resources on the Internet, WECAN makes it possible to focus hundreds or even thousands of pairs of eyes and brains on key government activities or services. Compensation of public employees is of fundamental importance to the accountability process, but it is only part of it. WECAN will also be posting databases and other resources having to do with budgets, expense accounts, audits, tax rolls, health and safety inspections and much else -- all with the idea of partnering with you, our readers, in doing analyses independent of official spin."

Put otherwise, WECAN illustrates how the Internet encourages an innovative partnering of media with the region's residents and civic groups in expanding the resources available for independent analyses of local and regional public services.

Despite just being launched, already a WECAN posting of the Montgomery County Public Schools employee compensation database has resulted in promising leads unearthed by readers concerning a top-heavy education bureaucracy consuming resources that could be going to improve classroom instruction and about the maddening persistence of the achievement gap between white and Asian students on the one hand and blacks and Hispanics on the other despite official pronouncements to the contrary.

We've also received a number of eager responses by civic activists who see the potential of WECAN to help them invigorate citizen participation and knowledge about important local issues like transportation, growth management, education, crime and taxation.

Besides posting databases and other useful resources to encourage independent, community-based analyses, WECAN will also feature continuous updates on official responses to information requests by the newspaper and by its readers, notices of particular skill sets needed by WECAN audit teams that are being formed and status reports on official efforts to remedy problems highlighted by WECAN analyses.

I'm enough of an optimist to believe that out of all that might just come a powerful force for greater transparency and accountability in local affairs, something Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds might view as a platoon in An Army of Davids. The same principle could be applied at the state and federal levels, too.

Additionally, WECAN illustrates the truth of the maxim grassroots journalism guru Dan Gillmor first promulgated -- our readers know more than we journalists do about the beats and topics we cover. A smart newspaper will see the value of harnessing multiple "stringers" for the news-gathering process.

One other thought here: Finding a way to make a newspaper a partner with civic groups throughout the community can't help but be a good marketing tool. Of course, I'm just a reporter, so what do I know about marketing, right?

Call me an ink-stained wretch or a hopeless policy wonk with a techno-geeky obsession, but if the possibilities of such a partnering of traditional media and Internet-age citizens doesn't get your journalism juices flowing, I suggest a visit to your cardiologist.

Among the oddities of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act effort was that many of the major advocates -- who spanned the political spectrum from left to right -- had never worked together and did not meet in person until the day President Bush signed the measure into law.

In fact, many of these folks who gathered in the old Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House to witness Bush signing the bill normally would be on opposing sides of most issues in Congress. But there was something different with FFATA, which requires the U.S. Office of Management and Budget to establish a google-like Internet database of most federal spending. The landmark measure was co-sponsored by senators Tom Coburn, R-OK, and Barack Obama, D-IL.

That something, of course, was the idea that accountability in government requires transparency and therefore taxpayers have a right to know how the government is spending their money. The Internet is especially well-suited for making such transparency available to anybody able to click a mouse.

Many of my friends on the right think this is a dandy idea because it will help expose more of the waste and fraud with which the federal budget is rife. And many of my friends on the left believe just as fervently that the more people realize how much good is done every day in a thousand ways by federal programs, the more they will want those programs to be properly funded.

My view is that the Coburn-Obama database will put much more and far more accurate information about federal spending in the hands of policymakers, the media and the public. Better information will lead to more informed decisions, regardless of the content or policy implications of those decisions.

Five weeks out from the voting in a bitterly contested congressional election that may well see a partisan earthquake in Congress might not seem like the ideal time to offer this observation, but I believe we are on the cusp of an era of fundamental reform sparked by greater government transparency.

Coburn and Obama hint at such an era in an oped in The Washington Examiner Monday:

"This movement also demonstrated that even in our polarized political culture the American people can forge a consensus and achieve real results. One Web site won't change government overnight, but the widespread support it received, the swiftness with which it was passed, and the steps it will take to reconnect citizens with their government are all real and welcome signs of hope."

There are lots of signs. The Sunlight Foundation, for example, has launched the Punch Clock Campaign designed to persuade Members of Congress to post on their web sites their daily meeting schedules. Sunlight is offering $1,000 "goodwill bounties" to anybody who persuades an incumbent to agree and $250 to those who persuade a congressional challenger.

Posting a public schedule might not seem like a big deal, but surely there is value in establishing the practice of disclosing who your congressman and senator is meeting with each day and otherwise accounting for the time they are supposed to be representing you in the nation's capitol. The campaign is only a couple of weeks old, but already Punch Clock has attracted support from groups across the spectrum, just like FFATA.

More important, 10 Members of Congress have signed the Punch Clock pledge, twice as many as refused, and hundreds of people are calling their representatives and challengers to ask them to also take the pledge.

One of Sunlight's prime movers is former Dean online campaign guru Zephyr Teachout, who in an email offered this observation about the Punch Clock effort to date:

"One of the things that is striking to me is how atrophied our public muscle has become, so that its difficult and daunting -- and a little embarrassing -- to call a politicians office and ask them to do something, even if its something you care about. One of our goals, besides transparency, is to give that muscle some exercise. For our democracy to work, collective action on fundamental issues of importance -- like transparency-- needs to be a habit, not an extraordinary moment."

Now there's an interesting new career possibility -- personal trainer for the political system's public muscle!