A lot of things prompts me to think about this thread.  The very latest was something Maj said elsewhere, and some conversation I heard on NPR last night.  But other things, too.

The NPR thing will be helpful in making the point.  Here in Wisconsin, the NPR broadcasters are constantly talking about how they are so even-handed.  Of course, every host makes snide comments about Bush in particular and Republicans in general (for example of such 'even-handed' comments, peruse Copernicus' post to Fuss in the 'bush blame' thread).  Last night I heard a conservative guest speaker and I almost crashed the car in shock.  Literally- I'm not exaggerating- I have never once heard a caller say anything nice at all about the Bush admin.  A couple of times a speaker earned the ire of some vets, but that's about it.

Now, with Rush Limbaugh sitting on, what, a listernship of some 20 million people, how is it that none of them ever call in on NPR?  And yet, NPR thinks it is balanced and objective and 'moderate.'

I think something stinks.  And this is not the only example.  The problem is in quantification.  Last night they were talking about how it is the press's 'constitutional' duty to serve as a check and balance to the government.  Well, that's interesting, because most of the people involved in the government are elected or in some other way being connected to the will of the people.

People involved in politics have to share their positions about this and that and make disclosure of any particular financial interests that they have, etc, etc.  Failure to do so in some cases is a crime.   Its just bad form to do that if you are a journalist.  You ain't going to jail.

But I started thinking, if our government officials are expected to make full disclosure as a part of exercising their 'constitutional duties,' than why not the press?  Or, why not any other group receiving public money or fulfilling a 'public' obligation?  hmmmm.  Like scientists?

Perhaps this is a way we can quantify things.  See, it doesn't bother me if a journalist is a liberal.  It does bother me if he's a liberal but says he's a moderate.  It bothers me even more if he says he's 'objective.'  We all know that there is no such thing as objective.  I'd be much more receptive to what a guy said if I knew where he was coming from.  At the very least, I could 'consider the source.'  But this is all hidden.

I propose that it would be a good idea for journalists, scientists, publc servants, etc, to maintain an up to date survey on what their opinions are over a wide course of subjects that could in anyway conceivably impact their work.   Yea, I know, that would be massively large.

There would be penalties for lying.  I don't know what.  But if you didn't want to take the public's money, you always had the option of simply not participating.

We could get to the bottom of the question of whether or not the press is liberal or conservative pretty quick.   We'd also be armed with an important tool to figure out for ourselves where and if bias is factoring in.  And we might be able to find out if its really true that all those scientists (whom you are supossed to defer to on practically everything) really are theists or Christians (though atheists don't think they should defer to them on that).

We could even do this for this forum if there was enough interest.

Thoughts?