In a post on his TechCrunch site, Michael Arrington asserts that we need to know the opinions of journalists on the subjects they cover, and that once we do, we ought to consider their expressions healthy because they are transparent.

"I'm dismayed to see journalists continue to be punished, even fired, for expressing their opinions on the things they cover," he starts.

Objectivity is just a lie, Arrington argues. Journalists use the pretext of objectivity to build credibility and the public shouldn't buy it. Rather, he says, understanding bias permits an understanding of content in context.

"We need more opinion in news, not less," he suggests.

Arrington makes an age-old assertion: Every choice a journalist makes is a subjective one. But he places his argument in the context of a changed media broadened immensely by access to tht technology of production and distribution.

The conventional wisdom today is that the line between opinion and reportage has blurred, in part because of a widening of the supply of content and creators, and in part because commentary is an effective form of communication that draws an audience.

He would rather we know what people think, not just think about what they say.