In a conversation with a friend the other day, about the Palin-Couric interviews, he wondered "But why did Couric keep asking that question?" -- the question being: Can you name any time, other than the one two years ago, that Senator McCain has supported regulation?

I was surprised, and caught (perhaps mistakenly) the implication that Couric was being somehow unfair, even 'mean', to Palin by pursuing this so rigorously. I said that Palin wasn't answering the question, and Couric was doing her job.

Later, something else occurred to me. He (my friend) is younger than I am. Young enough that he may actually have not been exposed to real journalism, to what it used to be, to what I was taught (in both high school and college classes) it is supposed to be. He thinks journalism is about letting each 'side' have their say. He believes that Bill O'Reilly is a journalist. He believes that Drudge [no link on purpose] is a journalist.

I don't.

But then, I don't think Keith Olbermann is a journalist, either. They are all partisans, they are all 'commentators'. Their job is to comment, and advocate, and entertain; their job is not about reporting. If an intelligent and relatively informed person believes that the New York Times and Washington Post are 'in the tank' for Obama, and thus one may safely dismiss any reporting they do; but Drudge and O'Reilly and Olbermann are journalists, where do we go from here?

When I was in school (in what apparently were the Light Ages) I was taught that reporters -- journalists -- were to be 'objective', they were to report the facts: What, Who, When, Where, How -- and the context: Why. The task -- which was believed to be important, even essential, to democracy -- was to inform and educate the American public. It was a High Calling. It was understood that reporters might make mistakes, but they were expected to be as thorough as possible, and to correct any mistakes as soon as possible.

And, there were editors. Editors were expected to know who the reporters' sources were, even if those sources were 'anonymous' in the story. Editors were to be sure that there were enough sources, and that the sources were credible. Editors weren't responsible only for spelling and grammar, they were responsible for factual accuracy. Their job was to be sure that their reporters got it right; that the report would not be biased in any direction.

Later, the whole idea of objectivity was called into question. Can people really be objective? Shouldn't we be informed of the political and personal stance of the person doing the reporting so that we can identify/ assume what bias will bend the reporting? Is there really such a thing as a fact? Isn't it all just opinion anyway? If a report supported one side over the other, it can't possibly be factual; it must be biased. Or: it agrees with me, so it is factual. Or: it disagrees with me, so it must be biased.

Well, perhaps objectivity is an unattainable ideal -- but I believe it's worth striving for. I also believe that there aren't just 'sides'; there's a real world out there, and we live in it. Reporters should be able to throw some light on that real world.

For example:

Today a high-ranking person in the political wing of the White House, who refused to be identified for the purpose of this report, stated that "Red is blue." Later, the White House Press Secretary, and a high-ranking person in the policy office of the White House who demanded anonymity, confirmed this statement.

Representative CommonMan and Senator Doe, both Democrats, claimed when asked that this is completely untrue, and that "Red is red and blue is blue. This is just another attempt by the Administration to confuse the issue."

We called the libertarian think-tank Colors and Politics, but they did not get back to us. Herman Lightwave, Ph.D., of the non-partisan Color Institute, says, "While it is true that some blues have red in them, and some reds have blue in them, red and blue are, in fact, different colors." Dr. Miranda Chartreuse, of the nonprofit Center for the Study of Colors, agreed with Dr. Lightwave, stating, "We have decades of research in this area, and it confirms that blue and red, while they may overlap at the edges, are actually quite different colors."

It is unclear at this time why the White House claims otherwise.

Versus:

A-A: Good afternoon, and welcome to Controversy!, the Absolute Supreme Talking Points Program on cable news! We're tough, we're mean, and we are On The Story! Today we'll be discussing the latest color bombshell with the best talkers in the tanks; on the left, Shaggy-Dog Democrat, and on the right, Rageful-Republican. I, Attractive-AnchorPerson, will be refereeing this Important and Significant Debate.

Mr. Shaggy-Dog, the Republicans have thrown this bone at you; what do you have to say?

S-D: Well this is just another under-handed toss by an administration desperate for attention. They will say anything to change the subject.

R-R: It is clear to anyone who gives it a moment of thought that red IS blue. No one but cowardly, unpatriotic Democrats and effete intellectuals would claim otherwise.

[Further comments undecipherable as all three talk loudly over each other.]

A-A: Sorry to put a pause on this enlightening discussion, but we must now go to break...

Is this really what journalism has come to, and worse, what we believe journalism should be? Does it no longer matter whether reporting is true and accurate, but simply which side the reporter supports? Does which side the reporter supports matter only so that we can cheer or dismiss the reporting, not so that we can assess its accuracy?