The following article (slightly edited) appears in the March 2008 edition of the Journalist.

It is time for journalists to shine a light into an aspects of our jobs we generally keep dark. I'm talking about many journalists' willingness to do commercial work such as media training and corporate writing on the side, and to accept gifts and hospitality from organisations we cover.

I'm not saying these relationships necessarily corrupt - journalists can and do bite hands that feeds us. But if we take freebies, or work for corporate clients as well as publications carrying out bylines, readers have a right to know.

This is why I'm proposing the establishment of an online space for freelance (and staff) journalists to publish details of interests that their readers may consider significant - things like facilities trips, corporate jollies and commercial engagements such as training or speechwriting.

The register would look much like Parliament's register of members' interests, with two differences. First, registration would be voluntary (even if compulsion were desirable, no one is in a position to enforce it). Secondly, the definition of "interest" would be up to the individual, depending on what sort of journalism they do. Some austere souls might want to list every cup of corporate coffee, others might take the view that it is obvious from what they write that they receive free holidays, review copies, etc. Some journalists might regard political affiliations as having nothing to do with their work, others might think them very relevant indeed.

So far, I've had a mixed response from colleagues. Some say they would welcome the opportunity to declare interests. Others say the idea is unworkable, harmful to journalism, or both.

Obvious objections range from the difficulty of policing mischief-making to the risk of exposing reporters' confidential sources. There is also a likelihood that the register would be dominated by sanctimonious gits ostentatiously declaring "none", while real rogues carry on as before.

Some colleagues say that existing rules are enough. I disagree - the NUJ code of conduct does not explicitly cover commercial interests. Where publishers' own rules require disclosure - at The Guardian, for example - editors rarely go out of their way to publish the information.

There's also the argument that the last thing British journalism needs today is another stick with which powerful critics can beat it. However I believe that a register could enhance the standing of journalists, especially if a reasonable number of people - especially all those low paid staffers who don't see a goodie bag from one year to the next - sign up.

Over the next few months I'm going to talk to organisations that might host a register about the costs and technicalities. I'd be interested to hear colleagues' thoughts, especially on the snags. At the moment, though, I'm convinced that a register is the right way to go. IJournalists are at the forefront of demanding transparency in other walks of public life. If we're to be taken seriously, we should be part of the process. 

In his book Good and Bad Power, Geoff Mulgan writes: "Like most aristocracies the top ranks of the media resent any suggestion that they might need to be held to account, or subject to ethical standards." Are we going to put that assertion to the test?