William Powers of National Journal—a magazine primarily aimed at D.C.-based political professionals—has some interesting thoughts on media bias in an article discussing coverage of the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts:

Many well-meaning media-watchers believe that the goal should be absolute objective purity, but to me, that isn’t human. Organizations are made up of people, people have leanings, and those leanings will always to some degree shade the choice of language and visuals. Fox News now regularly does what the networks have done for years — lets unmistakable code words and signals slip into the coverage, albeit of the opposite tincture.

Why not acknowledge the elephant? Talk about it in the news product, bring readers in on the struggle, make the bias question an occasional sidebar to the Roberts coverage. A really bold newspaper editor (any out there?) might send out two reporters of opposite ideological persuasions to cover one day of the confirmation hearings. Have each write a news story, and run them side by side, labeled as to leaning. Leave off the bylines, if you like. This idea may seem a little cute and professionally self-absorbed, but you know what? People would read it, and be impressed that you were wrestling with the bias question, instead of pretending it isn’t there.

I think he’s absolutely right. As I say in the about page for this site:

To claim to be without bias borders on outright fraud, because the only purpose of such a claim is to trick the audience into unwittingly digesting opinions that are packaged as fact.

[C]onsumers of news and opinion must be cognizant of the biases of the various media outlets they use. Regular readers of Brain Terminal will become aware of the biases of the editor, and this is a good thing, because it will make them smarter consumers of the opinions presented here.

One of the biggest problems the establishment media faces is an erosion of trust among news consumers. Some of that lack of trust is a direct result of the media’s claims to be objective and unbiased. If we’re seeing the bias on a regular basis from organizations that claim to have none, we begin to feel like we’re being lied to. To pretend that people who spend their entire lives covering news have no opinions at all about what they’re covering is absurd. And if reporters do have opinions, then to say that their opinions never color their reporting is naive and shows a fundamental ignorance of human nature.

The establishment media could probably cure a lot of its ills if it simply unleashed reporters from the straight-jacket of professed objectivity. At least if reporters were honest about who they are and what they believe—instead of hiding it and pretending they believe nothing in particular—we could properly evaluate what they say in light of where they’re coming from. Instead, vital information is being withheld from us, and we’re told that there is no bias when we can see it plainly for ourselves. We’re being played for fools, and that may have something to do with the public’s waning trust in the media.

In any process that involves humans, bias will be present. Instead of the media ignoring it and pretending it’s not there—and in the process destroying its own credibility—why not embrace it and make it part of the product?