I got a letter from a reader a while back.

It came after a column I wrote about how national media seem to lean to the left in their coverage of politics. And how conservatives generally are treated more harshly by the media than liberals.

The letter writer made some good points I'd like to share.

He said that while he agreed with what I wrote, he found my comments ironic.

He wrote: "I suggest that if you want to address the liberal media bias you should first look within your own organizations. This is not to imply that you share the views of the Washington press corps or wire services. It means that you publish ... their bias verbatim, thus perpetuating and implicitly endorsing their prejudice."

He added that as a businessman, it would be economic suicide for him to accept poor quality materials from his suppliers and pass them on to his customers.

"And yet that is exactly what you do when you publish liberally biased articles in your newspaper without applying any filter or balance whatsoever," he noted.

He then chided me for complaining about it in my column, saying it would be akin to him "protesting to my customers about the product I receive and pass on to them."

He concluded, "You are the customers of the organizations about which you are complaining. If you have a complaint with your suppliers wouldn't it be more effective addressing with them than with us, your customers and readers?"

Good question.

Problem is, I have complained. More than once. In fact, every time I saw the Indiana Associated Press bureau chief I complained.

He always assured me he passed my complaints along. Now we have a new bureau chief. I haven't met him yet. But when I do, I will complain to him, too.

Problem is, all the complaining in the world won't do any good. And there are a couple simple reasons for that.

First, there are lots of folks at the Associated Press who would argue that there is no problem with bias in their reports.

Second, they're the only game in town.

I can't change suppliers because there simply is no other supplier. There are supplemental wire services out there. We take one - Scripps Howard. I find their report to be balanced, but it doesn't have all the day-to-day stuff we need. That's why it's called supplemental.

So that gets us back to the first part of his criticism. How can we apply the "filter or balance" he suggested?

Frankly, it would be virtually impossible to filter out the slant of a story.

First of all, we are at the mercy of the reporter who wrote the story. He was there. It's his perception of the event he's covering.

Here's an example. Remember the Newt Gingrich phone call taping incident? A congressman left the House ethics committee after it was revealed that he may have provided the tape to the New York Times.

On the day it happened, the Associated Press reported that the congressman "recused himself" from the committee. Scripps Howard, in its second-day story, reported that the congressman "was forced" from the committee.

Those are two vastly different characterizations. But how would we know on the first day to change "recuse" to "forced"?

And frankly, we simply do not have the resources to pore over every wire story in search of bias. It just isn't possible.

Also, many times the problem is not what was written, but what was ignored. It's not the questions that were asked, it's the questions that weren't asked. The only way we could address that issue is to open our own Washington bureau.

We try to bring balance in other ways - like on our opinion pages. That's where the political news gets analyzed. There is a mix of liberal and conservative views on our opinion pages, although they generally lean conservative.

But after reading this letter, I wondered if perhaps we could do more.

That's where the Media Research Center comes in.

They call themselves media watchdogs. They post what's called a "Cyber Alert" on the Internet. It evaluates how the media treat current political topics.

I contacted the MRC and asked if I could publish these "Cyber Alerts" in the newspaper. They happily gave me permission, asking only that I credit their organization. Here's a little taste of what they're all about.

This is from the latest "Cyber Alert."

"ABC wasn't the only network to take a skeptical tone toward the White House overnights revelations. Interviewing Republican Congressman Dan Burton on the Feb. 25 'Inside Politics' on CNN, Bernard Shaw asked: 'How can you keep a straight face when you talk about this President, who is a Democrat, inviting people to the White House - big, heavy rollers, contributors - when the same thing was done by Republican Presidents?'

"Even Clinton supporters have been unable to offer any proof that Reagan or Bush did the same thing.

"When Burton pointed out that Clinton 'brought arms dealers into the White House to have lunch with him,' Shaw turned incredulous: 'Mr. Chairman, are you implying that a President of the United States can be bought?' "

And this:

"The Feb. 25 Los Angeles Times ran a front page story headlined: 'Clinton Intermediary Kept in Touch with Hubbell.' The story stated: 'In public, President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton for nearly three years have maintained a firm distance from former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell since their longtime friend resigned and pleaded guilty to fraud and tax evasion charges. But in private, the Clintons have stayed quietly in touch with Hubbell - through a trusted White House aide who acted as a confidential go-between. During the 16 months that Hubbell spent in prison, the aide, Marsha Scott, frequently visited him. And when Hubbell was first appearing before a grand jury investigating Whitewater, Scott traveled to Little Rock to confer with him.'

"The Feb. 26 Washington Times reported that Congressman Gerald Soloman, the chairman of the House committee investigating Hubbell's ties to Lippo, said yesterday, 'The White House may have obstructed justice through an aide's meetings' with Hubbell.

"So far, nothing about this matter on ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN."

So, in the interest of balance, watch for the Media Research Center's "Cyber Alerts" beginning next Friday on page 5A in your Times-Union. [[In-content Ad]]