This isn't the time to pick sides

What is in the best interest of full disclosure?

As a reporter, we usually know quite a bit about a politician or public figure before we start interviewing them. Political leanings, voting records and past interviews can offer us a lot of insight into who we are talking to.

But for the subjects, they usually come in blind.

With the public perception that there is news for conservatives and news for liberals, is it fair that the subjects of our interviews to know if there is a political agenda in play?

For the most part, reporters adhere to the tenants of non-partisanship fairly well. Of course, if someone sits down with Sean Hannity, they should probably understand what direction the interview is going to take.

But for a reporter, can there be anything more frustrating than introducing yourself to someone and they roll their eyes back, muttering, "Oh, you work for (insert name of your favorite biased, rumor-mongering tabloid). Great."

To avoid this, I propose expanding the recent surge in corporate branding by labeling reporters with their political viewpoints through one of the most popular forms of advertising - the T-shirt.

For the conservative reporter, the shirt should read "Defender of the American Way."

For the liberals, the T-shirt message should simply say "Member of the Media Elite."

And if you want still want to keep people guessing, how about "Of Course, We're Right And I Can Prove It."

By using this system, politicians, readers and viewers wouldn't be able to follow that normal course of denial when something comes out they don't like.

Some people might even like it better that way.

If you ever visit the massive cafeteria at the Kentucky Department of Transportation, you will notice something strange.

The cafeteria is kind of broken down in three sections: left, center and the right side. Each section has at less one television in it. Every time I have visited the cafeteria, one section is watching Fox News; one section is tuned in CNN and the third carries MSNBC.

It started me thinking.

Is this the way Americans really want their news and is there truly a bias in major news outlets?

Do Americans want 'fair and balanced' information and analysis or is it more important to belong to a group?

This is where newspapers step in.

Granted, if you're looking for bias, you can find it - even if it was unintentional. But newspapers have a distinct advantage over television news. Within the conventional 24-hour news programming cycle, it's sometimes difficult to tell where the news ends and commentary begins. For the most part, newspapers limit their editorials and commentary to the OP/ED page and if a column or some personal opinion appears elsewhere, it is usually pretty clearly marked. That's the way it should be.

With the trust of the public always being a major issue, newspapers and the media in general should strive to be inclusive and not even more divisive.

Click Here to go back