The Washington Post is now forbidding staffers from “writing, tweeting or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility.”

This is a trap that nearly everyone who is supposed to be “unbiased” falls into. They think it’s better to hide personal views than be open and transparent about it. I disagree.

I’m progressive, if you look at my tweets or google me, you’ll figure this out in about 5 seconds. Yet, I make tools that anyone can use — act.ly, GovLuv, and White House 2 are completely non-partisan. Part of it is necessity, how can I possibly draw a line on whether something aligns with a certain political view point? And part of it is my desire to change the game. Technology can be used for partisan ends (Tweet Progress is a good example) but it’s most effective at changing the rules of the game, and that’s what gets me excited.

So I’m in a somewhat similar position to the Washington Post. I don’t want conservatives to feel they are locked out of what I’m building, so the natural inclination would be to hide my personal views. But I don’t because I think people will trust me more when I’m honest about who I am. Very few people do this, particularly reporters, so people are naturally suspicious. This is part of why bloggers are gaining audience over newspapers and cable news is becoming more personality driven.

The funny thing is, I haven’t gotten any pressure from conservatives to stack the deck, and they love using both act.ly and White House 2.

But some progressives (not most, just a few) have actually tried to bully me into favoring them. Either changing something on the site, or even preventing conservatives from using the tool entirely. Not gonna happen.