Pathetic Insufficient Mail

Now, let's be fair here, okay? I haven't seen the AIM in the past four or five days - including today - so I can look at it objectively and not in hindsight.

BIAS isn't defined necessarily by what's on Page 1 and what's on Page 11 on any given day. You have to look at it both cumulatively and in relative terms. And relatively speaking, the AIM has made the strategic decision to stress LOCAL, LOCAL, LOCAL news. I have absolutely no problem with that and, in fact, applaud it.

I do think LOCAL, LOCAL, LOCAL should have some wiggle room, though. If you have an historic NATIONAL event that affects all of us - as in the first black candidate for President of the United States, or the first female candidate for Vice President on a Republican ticket - it probably should be somewhere on page 1-A, either as a large picture tipped inside to the main coverage, a tip box, or the lead story itself with its own headline.

At some point, in fact, a national story that everybody locally is talking about - like hurricanes hitting New Orleans - of necessity has to bump LOCAL, LOCAL, LOCAL off the front. We're talking MAJOR national stories here, at which point it comes down to the judgment of our local editors on what constitutes a "major" national or regional story. (I've been known to LIVE to second-guess editors, but it was futile - they all spend enough time second-guessing themselves on some stories that my opinion makes no difference.)

Again, I do not know how the AIM handled coverage of the DNC convention in Denver, but based on what you say about today's coverage of the Palin nomination, my assumption is they put all the Obama stuff inside with a tip box on the front. (And if they did that, then there's probably, as a means of balancing coverage, a tip box on the front on the Palin story today.)

If, on the other hand, they splashed Obama coverage all over 1-A, then buried Palin on page 11-A - and if next week they don't put RNC convention coverage all over the front to balance the coverage - THEY ARE BIASED. PERIOD.

I personally think both events, Democratic Convention and Palin - plus coverage of next week's RNC convention - deserve at least a nod on 1-A, even if most of the coverage is inside. But the question of bias can be answered only by looking at coverage of those events relative to one another.

I'll withhold judgment here until I get a chance to see what they did Tuesday through Friday compared to what they did today. They may well have been true to their NEWS philosophy of fairness, balance and LOCAL, LOCAL, LOCAL. Or they may have given in to their POLITICAL instincts and leaned sharply to the left. (Speaking of which, I do believe the honorable PUBLISHER of the AIM is a fiscally conservative/socially moderate Republican, but he probably wouldn't admit that in print.)

I just don't know, but I'm not ready to criticize or praise just yet. Obviously, I consider page 1-A to be a NEWS page which MUST be unbiased, while I don't really care one way or another what they do on their OPINION pages. I've worked for conservative publications, and I've worked for liberal ones. As long as their political leanings don't dominate the news pages, I'm happy as a pig in mud working for either one.

Does anybody who reads the paper every day want to clue me in here on what the AIM actually did on their coverage of the Democrats in Denver, rather than just how they covered the Palin story?

Yankeefan, I agree with you that there should have been a place on the AIM website for the Palin announcement, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether the print edition is biased or not. (Speaking of which, I did sneak a look at today's front while at was at the local BiLo a little while ago. No Palin. Anywhere. But I still haven't seen how they handled Obama's coronation in Denver, so I'll withhold final judgment on their bias as far as placement of stories within the paper.)

Lee-cole, a good reporter doesn't have to be a lifelong native to cover local news and local stories. While having local people serving in that role is an ideal, for some reason JOURNALISM hasn't ranked high on the list of standing-room-only crowds at Career Day in the local high school and colleges - especially with the (often justified) loss of confidence in the objectivity of the media in the past two decades.

I will agree with you that the AIM is biased as far as its EDITORIAL PAGES and COLUMNISTS. The endorsement of John Kerry in 2004 and, to an extent, Nick's leg-tingling column about Obama on today's website, along with Jeanne Mahlmgren's blind allegiance to all things liberal, are evidence of that.

BUT THAT'S THE EDITORIAL PAGE! THOSE ARE COLUMNISTS! THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OBJECTIVE!

In fact, if JDTippett had a column in the AIM, the LEFT side of the political spectrum would be all over him for his bias, just as they used the late Dr. William Hunter as a favorite target (God rest his soul - best team doctor Daniel High School could ever have hoped for when I was a student there.) But they'd never spot bias in his straight news stories. Huge difference.

I'll stand by my overall assessment that the AIM's news coverage, both print and internet, is fair and, with a few exceptions here and there, unbiased. Do they have a few  young, inexperienced reporters whose judgment needs a bit of honing? Of course. All newspapers do. (I suspect they even have a few editors with bald spots from pulling their own hair out because of some of those rookie mistakes that slip past. Wanna see my scalp scars?) But nobody ever starts a career at the top of his or her craft. Reporters are no different.

Being a newspaper reporter is just like any other job. You learn from mistakes. It just happens that those mistakes are sometimes out there for tens of thousands of people to see. Even doctors who sometimes attend the funerals of their mistakes don't face that kind of public scrutiny and criticism every day.