Centerfield

I would have re-titled this "media ambivalence". They are presently stuck between the two worlds of being strictly reporters of the story and commentators on (and therefore part of) the story.
Two related points:
1) I like NPR (and I understand its slight leftward lean). It distrubs me that when I listen to Michele Norris or Mara Liason during the week they're "just reporting" but if I happen to see them on the weekend talk shows they're commentating (and often on the opposite side of the table from the conservative pundit).
2) So if an administration official reveals the identity of a CIA operative to a reporter but it doesn't get reported did it really happen?

Well, I think most of them crossed the line into commentary long ago. Frankly, I'm one of those who doesn't believe real objective reporting is possible or that much of an ideal. I'd rather them all be more open about their biases.

Take summarizing tax bills and amendments, for example. Using words like "rich", "middle-class", and "poor" are highly value-laden, and capable of infinite manipulation. If you are sort of pro-tax, then you write a story about how Congress repealed or eased the Alternative Minimum Tax, which guarantees that the rich will pay some taxes regardless of tax dodges or loopholes. If you're more anti-tax, you write that Congress eased the burdens the expansion of te Alternative Minimum Tax was threatening to impose on the vast middle-class, effectively preventing home owners from getting the benefit of their mortgage and charitable contribution deductions.

Both statements are technically true; neither contains 100% of the story.

My title, however, was correct. The Washington Post's internal debate (leaked and posted at the link in the main story) shows that reporters think different rules should apply to them than the rules they seek to impose on every other major institution which affects the public. In the past 10 years or so in particular, they have become players, not just observers, in the system. Their reporting has been largely reduced to he-said, she-said recitations of the claims (anonymous and otherwise) made by both partisan sides, rather than any real analysis or reporting of the facts, at least beyond digging for gotchas or spying on Gary Hart's bedroom.

Good points Pat. It certainly has gotten messier for reporters. I did get a chuckle when I heard Daniel Schorr (I think it was him) ask "What did Bob Woodward know and when did he know it?" And having grown up in the Watergate Days I have a lot of respect for Woodward.

I'm a fan of NPR's as well. Honestly, one of the things I like most about NPR is the quiet, calming voices of their commentators and reporters. As superficial as that may sound, I'm just tired of the yelling and shouting on cable and talk radio. If I wanted to hear uncontrolled emotions, I'd just watch Judge Judy.

I must say that I'm with Chris here though...I do find it somewhat disconcerting to see so many journalists now fronting as commentators on the side. Are we supposed to believe that they shut their commentator side completely off when they go back to reporting?

Abel, repeat after me, as I slowly wave my hand at waist level:

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

These aren't biased reporters.

He can go about his business.

Move along.

Good point aboveb. But I'm not ready to go quite as far as this:

I'm one of those who doesn't believe real objective reporting is possible or that much of an ideal. I'd rather them all be more open about their biases.

I'm one who'd rather that we KEEP objectivity as yet another one of those unachievable ideals that is worthwhile enough to keep pursuing. AND that we try to be more open aboput our biases, which means being more aware of them.

For example, in the example Pat cites above, if you tried your best to be objective, you could use numbers to give a fairly objective version of the AMT story. It might take more words and numbers, but it could be done.

And to give Pat credit, I expect he's on board with that. Here's the thing though: I keep reading people whop seem to be shopping by implication the notion that as long as you identify your biases, then it's all good. You're then free as a reporter to field the crappiest most one-sided argument you want.

And yeaeh, first amendment wise, you always were free to do that, bias IDing or not. The point is, we want better than that from journalists.