From the new "Public Editor" of the New York Times, on their belated coverage of the Air America scandal:

There's another reason to get to the bottom of the scandal. It's the perception problem — a perception of liberal bias for which I haven't found any evidence after checking with editors at the paper.

And I'll bet he typed that with a straight face.

[Update at 3:40 PM EDT]

One of the commenters apparently had a hidden mike at that fact-checking session:

PUBLIC EDITOR (to Editor #1): Have you been intentially avoiding the Air America story because of your liberal bias?

EDITOR #1: Well, that's just outrageous! There is no liberal bias at this institution. We're all moderates, who use objective methods to ensure fair and unbiased reporting.

PUBLIC EDITOR (to Editor #2): How about you, number 2? Any liberal bias preventing you from reporting on the Air America scandal?

EDITOR #2: Well, heavens no! It's just that an institution stealing money from poor kids is such a non story. I would never pass up a good story because of my personal politics. By the way, I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative.

PUBLIC EDITOR (to Editor #3): And number 3? Why are no good Air America scandal stories being delivered from your department? Is it that you don't want Air America to look bad?

EDITOR #3: No way, man! If this story had any legs, I'd be all over it like Rush Limbaugh on Oxycontin. I've got no beef with conservatives.

PUBLIC EDITOR (to all 3 editors): Just a quick survey then, which of you three voted for "W" for President this past November?

EDITOR #1: Are you insane!!! I'd sooner slit my wrists that vote for that lying war monger.

EDITOR #2: Just because I didn't vote for Bush, the worlds biggest terrorist, doesn't make me a liberal.

EDITOR #3: Ha ha!!! Me? Vote for Chimpy McBush-Hitler? Oh! You're serious?

PUBLIC EDITOR: Nope, no bias here!

Perhaps he should sit down with his predecessor, Daniel Okrent, who said that there absolutely was liberal bias at the paper.

Perhaps that's why Okrent is no longer "Public Editor"?

Let's listen in on that conversation:

PUBLIC EDITOR (to Editor #1): Have you been intentially avoiding the Air America story because of your liberal bias?

EDITOR #1: Well, that's just outrageous! There is no liberal bias at this institution. We're all moderates, who use objective methods to ensure fair and unbiased reporting.

PUBLIC EDITOR (to Editor #2): How about you, number 2? Any liberal bias preventing you from reporting on the Air America scandal?

EDITOR #2: Well, heavens no! It's just that an institution stealing money from poor kids is such a non story. I would never pass up a good story because of my personal politics. By the way, I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative.

PUBLIC EDITOR (to Editor #3): And number 3? Why are no good Air America scandal stories being delivered from your department? Is it that you don't want Air America to look bad?

EDITOR #3: No way, man! If this story had any legs, I'd be all over it like Rush Limbaugh on Oxycontin. I've got no beef with conservatives.

PUBLIC EDITOR (to all 3 editors: Just a quick survey then, which of you three voted for "W" for President this past November?

EDITOR #1: Are you insane!!! I'd sooner slit my wrists that vote for that lying war monger.

EDITOR #2: Just because I didn't vote for Bush, the worlds biggest terrorist, doesn't make me a liberal.

EDITOR #3: Ha ha!!! Me? Vote for Chimpy McBush-Hitler? Oh! You're serious?

PUBLIC EDITOR: Nope, no bias here!

Thanks for giving me the glory, Rand. I think it's the first time my comments have made it to the front page of any blog. It's most appreciated.

PUBLIC EDITOR (to Editor #1): Have you been intentially avoiding the Air America story because of your liberal bias?

EDITOR #1: Well, that's just outrageous! There is no liberal bias at this institution. We're all moderates, who use objective methods to ensure fair and unbiased reporting.

That answer would be absolutely true. The press does use objective methods to get the information. They do a good job getting the information. Up to that point, I think the press does an outstanding job. Its the next step. They collate the information and use only the facts that support the view they wish to use to sway your opinion. They use the facts to create drama that gets more people to read, or watch. If they don't do that correctly, the editors do it for them. I don't blindly blame the press for liberal bias. I blame the press for letting the greed of greater circulation and greater profit hijack their duty to report the facts only. The word journalist portrays a person who keeps an accurate journal of the facts. What comes from the press isn't journalism, its speculative fiction.

Mac, you're reading the quote wrong. The statement, "We're all moderates, who use objective methods to ensure fair and unbiased reporting." applies to the REPORTING, not only to the gathering of the facts.

As for the reasons for the biased media, when I was in my teens and early twenties, I used to believe it was all about the drama and circulation, and that it had nothing to do with a liberal bias. But years of experience have taught me that this is not so, or at least there's more to it that just drama and circulation. Consider the following facts.

In the last 12 months the LA Times has had an 18% drop in circulation, and yet they continue their anti-war, anti-Bush stance. This ciculation drop has been felt in many areas of the MSM including other newspapers (like NY Times), Network News, and cable news channels. About the only news outlet that isn't hurting for viewers/subscribers is Fox News. Hmmm...see a pattern here?

There is a war going on, and any good writer can tell you that war stories (both fictional and non-fictional) are some of the most amazing drama you can possibly write and read about.

Yet with circulation dropping, and thousands of true life war story dramas for the taking, the press focuses on Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay, Cindy Sheehan, and soldier death counts from Iraq.

Do you really believe that the MSM coverage is only mildly affected by liberal bias?

Do you really think that Abu Graib making the front page of the NY Times for 40 STRAIGHT days was done just to boost circulation?

Can you honestly, and with a straight face, tell me that ignoring professional document reviewers' opinions about the unverifiable nature of the falsified TANG memos was just the result of "shoddy" reporting attempting to pursue a dramatic story?

Liberal bias in the media is fairly well documented from Internet media watchers, retired newsmen, and even university studies.

You can believe it's all about drama and ciruculation if you want, but don't be surprised if your view changes as you approach and pass the 30 year old mark!