Essentially, journalism is about only a few things: issues, events and the people who have something meaningful to say about them. What has made journalism so essential to society these past few hundred years is that journalists are trained to recognize which events are essential and what issues matter the most and which people have the most relevant and meaningful things to say about them, and to get that information from them and to us.

It is very much about voices – giving voice to those who have no other platform and ensuring that those who have the loudest and most powerful voices are challenged and forced to be accountable for whatever they say.

The Spokesman-Review at times has been a powerful advocate of expanding the range of voices given space in its pages, sometimes well and sometimes not so well. It has been a leader in providing more space for letters than almost any other newspaper in the country and it is a recognized leader in developing blogs as an instrument for providing greater interactive communication between itself and its readers. Editor Steve Smith and Editorial Page Editor Doug Floyd should be commended for this commitment.

But, providing a platform for expression is not always responsible journalism, and in two areas I feel the Review has given away too much of its franchise in what is, one guesses, the pursuit of diversity.

Those areas are the regular Wednesday column written by Richard Davis, vice president-communications – e.g. PR flack – for the Association of Washington Business, and the Faith & Values space given to Pastor Steve Massey of the Hayden Bible Church, Paul Graves and others.

First, it must be emphasized that neither area is hard news – both are opinion and commentary, and as such should not be held to all the normal strictures of news reporting. But they do represent a vision of how the Review is allocating its most precious commodity – its news hole – and they must be held to the same standards of all journalistic commentary.

First, it should be recognized that Massey, Graves and the other religion contributors do not descend to the level of Davis’ efforts. They are what they are; they write honestly from the context of their belief systems. There is no pretense or dissembling involved – the main issue I have with their contributions is the narrow range of contributors included, but more on that later.

On the other hand, Davis’ column is different. Through the disclaimer printed at the end of his column, Davis would have us believe that he is just another citizen expressing his opinions.

That is worse than simply inaccurate, it is disinformation of the worst kind, especially since it is countenanced by the paper by its inclusion. There is no way that Davis’ opinions and commentary are not representative of and influenced by his allegiance to his employers and their constituents.

A close reading of any of his columns reveals his biases, the frequent use of unsubstantiated allegations and half-truths, the complete lack of balance, and his exclusive promotion of a pro-business agenda. This is especially egregious considering the Review’s Code of Ethics specifically states that “news must remain beyond the sway of special interests” and that “stereotyping of individuals or groups should be avoided.”

What Davis provides is not “service journalism,” which attempts to educate and inform, and it’s not “civic journalism,” which attempts to bring issues to the forefront in order to stimulate debate and engagement. It’s not reporting, it’s not really commentary – it’s really propaganda, and it has no place in a legitimate newspaper.

Davis of course has the right to his opinions, and he is a legitimate source for reporters seeking comments and perspectives on issues relating to business. But the Review can use its space better than as a platform for such narrow perspectives and self-serving ideologues.

A far more innovative approach would be to invite Davis and other business, finance, labor and industry representatives to respond to specific issues, such as outsourcing, health care cost sharing, immigration impacts and the like on a periodic basis, editing their responses in order to present a comprehensive look at the subject.

Or, if the purpose is to specifically provide a “business” perspective, which is not necessarily a bad idea, provide the space to a series of authors, including respected business representatives, journalists, academics, labor representatives and the like.

The same could be done with the space allotted for Faith & Values. Why not allow Buddhists, Muslims, LDS representatives, Catholics and others to have the opportunity to speak on issues of faith and values? A wider range of diversity and perspective would be especially valuable and instructive as American interests increasingly collide with other cultures.

Certainly it would take more work, but I believe it would be worth the effort.

What the Review and all newspapers need to do to enhance their moral authority is to be a platform for more balance, more thoroughness, more varied perspectives, not to become a soapbox for special interests.

Pax rhetorica.