Bias filter #2: Framing the story for the public. For each non-wire story selected for coverage, the editor usually guides the assigned reporter by communicating the story’s angle.

Example 1: “Hey, Ann! A source called and said that Alderman Sixpack awarded a city contract to his brother-in-law's construction company. See if you can verify, and then let's turn up the heat.”

Note that in both examples, the editor is creating a subjective frame of reference for readers. In the first example, the contracting story may be true, yet, depending on local laws, it may also be perfectly legal. But just writing a story about such a contract (or any investigation/allegation, for that matter) can permanently sway public opinion against a targeted public official.

Bias filter #3: Selecting which facts in a story are “important.” When a reporter comes back with a story draft, the editor decides what facts to leave in or take out (this may be space related, but it may not).

Bias filter #4: Positioning the facts in a story. When editing a reporter’s story draft, the editor decides whether or not the “pertinent” facts are positioned “correctly” in the story. Editors know full well that most readers only read the first few paragraphs of any given news item, and that fewer still will follow a story if it jumps to another part of the newspaper. So if a key fact turns up in the back of a story for no good journalistic reason, political bias may have been the motivator. I've caught top-of-the-line newspapers like The Chicago Tribune and The New York Times using this tactic.

Bias filter #5: Selective terminology or phraseology. Descriptors used in news stories are sometimes a reflection of the politics of the periodical featuring the stories. For example, one publication may use the phrase “killing” or “destroying” trees, to describe logging operations, while another would describe the removal of trees as “harvesting.” Similarly, one publication may discuss abortion in terms of “killing a fetus,” while another may refer to it as “terminating a pregnancy."

For example, let’s say U.S. troops were ordered into a country called Perturbistan two months ago, and yesterday, there were sporadic press reports that a new assault was brewing near the capital. For a newspaper with one political slant, a headline might read, “U.S. troops tighten grip on Perturbistan.” However, for a newspaper with a different political slant, a headline may read something like, “War bogs down, enters third month.”

In this respect, news truly is whatever the editor says it is.

If a newspaper editor has a strong political viewpoint, and has no organizational checks and balances, it does not matter how professional the editor thinks he/she is. The newspaper will be biased.

In some cases, I see editors gamely go through the motions of addressing the tenets of Journalism 101 by supplying an “opposing point of view” to a politically-charged story. Unfortunately, it seems that such weak efforts are often buried at the end of a story, or colored in some way so the opposing viewpoint comes across as unreasonable to the average person.

The fact is, news bias is very real, and it occurs in every type of media outlet. And the degree to which news is manipulated depends entirely on the discipline, perceptiveness and professional integrity of the journalist/editor -- a big challenge in today's smaller, less politically diverse newsrooms.