How often do you come across a bit of news and say to yourself: “I had no idea!” For me, learning that the Unification Church had a stake in Newsweek, a magazine that I used to subscribe to and enjoyed immensely for many years was a bit of a surprise. In the first article below, MediaPosts’ Steven Rosenbaum outlines the media efforts of the Unification Church in the past.Some time ago when I was working for a consulting firm, we were tasked with launching a newsmagazine that was owned by the church. Our goal was to get it onto the newsstand to compete with Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report. The magazine was awkwardly named "The World and I" and I recall that the magazine was thick, expensively produced, and expensively priced for the time. It did not have a national distributor and I don’t remember if that’s because no one would touch it, or if that was the financial model the Church wanted. As a loyal employee of my firm, I consulted on the title but I confess that working for them bothered me quite a bit. While I fulfilled our contractual requirements, I don't remember being enthusiastic about the work.Did that make me a bad employee? Should I have resigned? Told the boss I wouldn’t work publication what was created by what was considered to be a cult? I remember that our representation of the publisher was framed to us as a question of the first amendment and that our employer expected our cooperation and effort. Was it a first amendment question? I think so. But sometimes I wish there were more guardrails when it comes to the first amendment and news publishing.Years later I had that whole question thrown back in my face when I accepted a commission to work on the circulation for a publisher who had “controversial” editorial content. Why, the questioner wanted to know, was I so squeamish about the Moonies, but not about this publisher? Was it still a questions about first amendment rights? Good question. To be fair, the person asking it was not a Unification Church member. They just liked to argue and wanted to know how I squared the circle. If nothing else, the exercise taught me to look at the world with a little more nuance instead of broad brush strokes.Let’s put it this way: An informed citizenry has every right, and every responsibility, to know who the people are who publish the content they are reading (Or watching, or listening to). The responsibility is an important part of it. You shouldn't believe everything put in front of you. But you also shouldn't presume that everyone who produces news is being clear about who they are and what they are doing.If a publisher’s “About Us” or “Contact Us” tab is deliberately vague, doesn’t clearly state who their ownership is, where their funding came from, or who they aim to serve, I leave and don't go back. I suggest you do the same. Be straight with your audience, and they will be loyal to you.Moreover, I have long firmly held that like a food table, a publisher (and public opinion publisher) should be required to be transparent about their ownership stakes and funding. In the case of my new client who published “controversial” editorial? I knew them, had been to their offices, knew their qualifications, knew how they treated their employees, knew the other consultants who had worked for them. In other words: “Trust, but verify.” As a bonus: I was a freelancer and they paid well. And they paid on time and in full. And when the project ended and it was time to go, they gave me a very generous one month notice and paid that in full too. PS: Do you employ “freelancers”? Pay them. Well. And on time. And when you’re done with them, give them plenty of notice. And pay that last invoice.