Transparency benefits everyone

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jun/08/nhs-local-newspapers
It really can’t be in the best interest of any NHS trusts, and certainly not in those of the public who pay for them, for them to hold all of their board meetings in private.
There are, of course, some matters which have to remain confidential, but to not be seen to absolutely transparent about everything which isn’t confidential doesn’t do them any good.
It’s one thing to be above board, but you have to be seen to be, especially as a public body. Like Caesar’s wife, they have to be above suspicion by being as transparent as possible.

‘Staged’ pictures have to be transparent

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/may/06/barack-obama-news-photography
To make a big fuss about President Obama restaging a bit of an historic speech for the benefit of photographers who weren’t in the room for the original speech seems more than a little pernickety to me.
Have the same people denounced the famous picture of the Stars and Stripes being raised at Iwo Jima because it too was restaged after a film cameraman caught the actual moment? Probably not.
Rightly, many have complained about the famous Robert Capa picture of a Spanish soldier being shot because it was not only staged but false — it wasn’t what it claimed to show.
And there’s the difference. What does the caption claim that the picture shows? “President Obama announcing that Bin Laden has been caught and killed” or “President Obama speaking”. The caption has to make it clear or not make the crucial claim.
Faking historic moments is out, but restaging with a caption that doesn’t make false claims isn’t.
What would these critics have said if he hadn’t agreed to come out again for the photographers?