Why is 'transparent' tactic ‘‘counterproductive and contrary to one’s belief in the First Amendment’?

Why is 'transparent' tactic ''counterproductive and contrary to one's
belief in the First Amendment'?

In New Yorker's article (August 6) titled, 'Bezos and the Washington Post:
A skeptical view,' the writer, John Cassidy wraps up his article with the
following statement:
Will he (Bezos) be ordering his editors to publish articles defending
Amazon's business tactics and criticizing those who question them? - - -.
Such a tactic would be transparent, counterproductive, and, quite
possibly, contrary to his belief in the First Amendment. But through the
editorial columns of the Post, -- he will be able to have his voice heard
much more clearly. And that, surely, must be worth something to him. Two
hundred and fifty million dollars, perhaps?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/08/bezos-and-the-washington-post-a-skeptical-view.html
I stumbled with the line, "Such a tactic would be transparent,
counterproductive, and contrary to his belief in the First Amendment."
Why "transparent tactic," that is thought to be very productive and
commendable, can be "counterproductive and contrary to the belief in the
First Amendment" as well? I'm afraid I'm reading the sentence in too
immature way, and perhaps nitpicking.
What does 'transparent' here mean? Would you clarify why 'transparent' is
laid in parallel with 'counterproductive' and 'contrary to the belief in
the freedom of speech" as a business tactic, or an executive order?