An interesting comment arrived a few days ago in regard to my June 13 column in this space about the U.S. military being disinclined to get involved in politics.  Sent by Dave Hamilton June 14, the comment took up the issue, again, of the performance of the media in a democracy -- ours. 

Dave referred to a speech in which Tony Blair lambasted the press. He agreed with Blair's complaint that commentary was sneaking into what should be straight news. That bothers me too; I see more of it on TV and in the news magazines than in newspapers.

Blair made quite a stir with what was billed as one of his farewell speeches. He accused the media of acting like "feral beasts." That drove the British press crazy. Commentators retaliated by saying, in effect, you're a fine one to talk, Tony, with all the spinning you've been doing since you got in office.

But the stung British scribes, and most thinking observers, had to agree with a couple of Blair's zingers -- namely, that the 24-hour news cycle was trivializing the news, and that overall coverage of the process of governing was outstripping coverage of substance.

The British debate over Blair's dismal view of the media wasn't framed in leftist versus rightist terms. (Blair belongs to the Liberal party.) But Dave Hamilton raises that issue, in connection with the U.S. media, by referring to a column I posted March 20 about the media's coverage of the Iraq war. He suggests I was trying to "bamboozle" folks by writing what in his interpretation came out as "newspapers today aren't really liberal."

What I actually wrote was in my view quite different: "I do not believe there is a journalistic cabal of 'leftists' out to destroy America's war effort in Iraq, whether or not a lot of reporters are personally liberal." Yes, I do believe there are many liberal reporters and editors in the mainstream media, and some conservative ones as well, as Dave acknowledges. (Publishers of American newspapers, as opposed to the working press, historically have had a conservative bent.)

My point in the original column was that the media's natural inclination to attack authority and its unfortunate tendency to practice pack journalism can be misinterpeted as the onslought of one political tendency.

Real professionals don't let their personal prejudices seep into journalistic work. So I would judge every single article, indeed every headline, and every TV newsman's report against a set of criteria that excludes any assumption of the author's personal politics.

Is the work balanced, with more than one side's position stated? Is it well-sourced and not full of opinions from persons hiding behind a cloak of anonymity? Does it deal in facts and not unlabeled commentary and conjecture? Is it fair?

In the present media jumble, the discerning eye and ear is the news consumer's last, best defense.