Laugh about it, shout about it...

Keba asked:

"But, as a general rule, wouldn't the opinions expressed (by the editors, not the general public 9n the "speak-up" part) in the opinion/editorial sections be a good indication of the bias of the overall publication?"

No.

Listen, for one thing it occurs to me that there is not now, nor ever has been, nor ever will be, any place of business larger than ten employees where everyone in the place agrees on your choice of subject. Getting more than half to agree on anything is almost as hard. Newspapers are no different.

What is most significant, though, is that most of the people writing or contributing to the editorials actually have very little (if anything) to do with the day-to-day operations of a newspaper. Newspaper operations are overseen by a specific editor, usually the Managing Editor or editor. Each section generally has their own editor and the editors meet regularly as the 'editorial board' much as a company board of directors would meet.

Unless you see an endorsement signed by the "editorial board" (such as the endorsement of a political candidate, for instance) you are most definitely not seeing a consensus opinion. The NYT makes a habit of endorsing a candidate from each of the two major parties during the primary season (I believe they endorsed McCain and Clinton this year) and will often - though not always - endorse a presidential candidate during the general. This does not mean anything about how the hard news editors will guide the coverage of the election. Most op/eds and editorials are submitted by either private citizens who have the credentials to speak with authority on a given topic and/or by contributing editors or columnists.

Beats are assigned based on talent, seniority, and a host other considerations. Most mature (as in mature in their profession) journalists have a great deal of latitude on which stories they cover with the editors choosing from what is brought to them rather than assigning every story in the paper. It is a collaborative process. Most of these news editors are former journalists, so we're talking about stories assigned by journalists to journalists. Some stories are gimmees, some come as press releases, some as tips, some off the wire services that require local followup.

There are definitely kinks in the system and no system is immune from abuse, but the level of malfeasance alleged in most complaints about the media boggles the mind. While I cannot say that every news editor or managing editor out there doesn't have an ax to grind with one thing or another... there are governing boards, professional boards, standards and practices, libel manuals, and a host of safeguards (which don't always work, I'll admit) to keep the news as honest and free of bias as it possibly can.

Is it 100%? No. No system can be. And there are definitely news outlets that I view with a skeptical eye, but the level of accuracy attained is remarkable and a lot of hard work to produce.

That's the American model.

There have been outlets in recent memory who have been taking the British model of delivering a well-understood and tacitly acknowledged slant to their news reporting. In the British papers, as I have noted recently, bias is not only ok, it isn't hidden. My British friends tell me that everyone in the country takes numerous papers, knowing that they're slanted and derives their news by sipping from every cup. Maybe that's a better system, but I don't think it is. But some think so and there are definite interests out there wanting to make that model more American (such as Rupert Murdoch, who just purchased the Wall Street Journal). I find that distressing.

The system isn't perfect. There's a lot of infotainment out there. Go click on my "And now... the News" post to see a distressingly accurate take on cable news et al.

The trouble currently is that broadcast news is leading the charge into the British sensationalist system, no longer delineating a line between editorializing and news reporting. Commentators come on and give their spiel, often 'interviewed' by the talking heads using pre-arranged prompts with no indication to an unwary public that they're blurring an important line. Military experts give their opinion on whatever happened in Iraq without caveat, pundits report statistics and polls as facts without clarification.

The American people have become so numbed and complacent with being spoon-fed news on the 24-hour cycle that print is dying because it cannot keep up. Thank you CNN. I recently heard a media commentator refer to a newspaper's website as the reincarnation of the 'afternoon edition'. And that's pretty accurate. Maybe the internet can save Journalism (with a capital 'J') but that's the full half of the glass talking.

I want it made abundantly clear that while there have been more than a few bad apples in recent memory, either tugging their forelock to the administration or foaming at the mouth and pursuing them with the avid determination of a Zombie mob out trolling for brains. I'd wager good money that 89% of the journalists in the US would rather eat glass than engage in yellow journalism. The 11% that would, work for the papers and media outlets that get off on that sort of thing.

They can't always be right, but they damn well try.

Media consolidation, FCC deregulation of television stations, reduced markets and other forces are driving the publisher into the newsroom, begging for ratings. The TV news (which I never, ever watch) has eroded the confidence the press feels in themselves. The need to play 'gotcha' to get ratings is feeding public dissatisfaction with a press that can't figure how to respond to a readership that decries the sex scandals and death tolls while buying ten times as many copies when those stories are featured.

Journalists are people. No better, no worse than you or I. Except that they are trained, rigorously by the schools that award them degree, to sublimate their own opinions and dwell in the realm of facts no matter how they feel about it. They have their own opinions and their own ideas and are less inclined than most to allow anyone to tell them what to think. Are trained - in fact - to resist editorial pressure. To cling to the truth. They're people, though, right? So not everyone can or is willing to do it.

About the only things they can be said to agree on 100% is that it would be nice to win a Pulitzer, Peabody, Nobel and/or Murrow.

By way of illustration: My last act as a journalist, back in college, was to accept three major awards from the Missouri College Newspaper Association. I beat out reporters and editors from the University of Missouri School of Journalism - the oldest journalism school in the world and still one of the most prestigious.

They were presented to me by a dean that would - within months - be forced out in disgrace because of the news story and editorials I was receiving the awards for. I had known her and her family for my entire life.

Nothing happens for only one reason, but that was the main reason why I walked away from it.
I couldn't do it anymore and changed my major, walked away from a promising career because I had looked in the teeth of what it meant to be that dispassionate, that detached from the story I was reporting.

That is the pool journalists are drawn from.