It’s not about “balance,” which is a false construct. It isn’t even about “objectivity,” which is a laudable but probably unattainable goal. It is about independent thinking and sound, facts-based journalism — the difference between what we do and the myopic screed that is passed off as “advocacy” journalism these days.

Which leads to @Lary Coppola’s comment. I think it’s safe to say that I don’t see the same level of bias you do, but it’s generally a fair question. I will point out that every news reporter I’ve seen commenting on Inslee’s outright opposition to the tax swap has been puzzled by it.

Steve

The so called “subject matter expert” reporters are the worst and all and ignore all who disagree.

You may think this paper is unbiased but it isn’t. If you want to be unbiased you can’t just assert that it is so. You must work everyday to prove you aren’t by how you write and what you publish.

But this brings up a much larger question — the use of editorial advocacy in the reporting of news stories — especially where elections are concerned. The Lamestream Media — which consists mostly of TV journalists, internet bloggers, with a small smattering of big-city newspapers thrown in, have the job of unbiasedly reporting the news — NOT creating it. They seem to have forgotten that.

As this election has shown, most of the Lamestream Media has become little more than the publicity arm of the Obama campaign, giving him a free pass on the economy, the Mideast, unemployment, the debt, the use of executive orders to circumvent the Constitution, and even more importantly, his vision for America’s future — among other things. Did they report on the fact he was on a fundraising trip in Las Vegas rather than at the White House when the embassy in Libya was attacked? No. Did they report he had blown off attending the daily intelligence briefings for two weeks before the attack so he could be out raising money? No. What else did they neglect to report that could have made a difference in how people perceive the job the president is doing?

Meanwhile, they have scrutinized Romney right down to the point of reporting on the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches he ate in the green room after the first TV debate — while conveniently ignoring Michelle Obama feasting on steak and lobster (for which the taxpayers footed the bill) at the same time.

The same can be said of the McKenna-Inslee governor’s race. Most of the Lamestream Media’s coverage of Inslee has been slanted heavily in his favor, extolling his support of green energy — while ignoring the fact it doesn’t pencil and has been a colossal failure. Meanwhile they continue to attempt to tie McKenna to the extreme right-wing of the Tea Party, when in truth his record shows he is a moderate.

So which is worse — or what’s the difference? Having a newspaper donate ad space, which the editorial department has nothing to do with, or having Lamestream Media journalists slant their editorial coverage towards one candidate while unfairly using words to paint an unflattering portrait of the opponent?

Both are highly unethical, but until citizens demand unbiased coverage and don’t allow partisanship to dominate bona fide news coverage, the problem is only going to get worse.

Look how churches have tried to affect elections based on religious beliefs. Every paper has multiple lists of who the paper or its editorial board supports. I would like to see one year where the news sources report the facts, just the facts, no endorsement, not one side or the other. Then if they would fact check any political ad prior to publishing and either not publish if half truths or lies or publish along side the ad the facts, then trust in the news may start back up.

The Seattle Times corporate management would be better off spending the $80,000 on paying its reporters better or checking the facts of all sides of the campaigns.