Should we in the media be virtuous? That is, should we consciously set out to do good – and to be good? The American people, especially the young, say “yes.” And yet most in the media say “no” – for various reasons that are worth exploring.

Needless to say, most journalists, like most people, wish to think of themselves as virtuous. But still, it is not the normal language of journalism to speak of virtue as a goal.

For news reporters, the stated goal instead is to be “objective” – to get the story right. That’s a laudable goal, of course, but as Abraham Lincoln once explained, there’s a difference between objectivity and neutrality.

One can be objectively accurate in one’s report, but still not neutral in one’s stance. As Lincoln put it, if your loved one is being eaten by a bear, you can see the situation clearly – and seek to save your loved one. In such a case, the virtue of impartiality risks becoming the vice of indifference.

Last month, many people thought that CNN went overboard on “neutrality” with its three-part special, “God’s Warriors.” Reporter Christiane Amanpour neatly divided her reporting into thirds, among Jews, Christians and Muslims. Yet, one watchdog group, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, called her reportage “one of the most grossly distorted programs” ever aired on TV. At a minimum, one can say that by rigidly assigning “equal time” to zealotry in all three faiths, she was imposing an artificial and misleading “fairness.”

On the other hand, a growing branch of the media is punditry. And commentators generally make no pretense of being fair; their goal is to show “attitude,” so as to generate “buzz” and glean “eyeballs.”

But one problem with such relentless self-promotion is that it attracts people to whom modesty and decency are strangers. A case in point is MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson, who on Aug. 28 bragged about a gay-bashing incident from his youth. Carlson will no doubt be doing penance before gay groups for years to come, but his chuckling recollections of his own thuggery provide a wide window into his true self. Yet, he’s “good television,” and so he still has a job.

Of course, nobody in the media – including this writer, who also contributes to the Fox News Channel – is without fault.

But maybe, in pursuit of scoops and ratings, we have gone too far. That’s what the American people seem to think, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

The center found that most Americans believe the media don’t care about the people they report on. Indeed, they think that news organizations are too critical of America overall – although it’s important to note that by a 2-1 ratio those same respondents think that George W. Bush is receiving fair coverage, which suggests that people see a distinction between the treatment of an individual politician and the treatment of our country.

Interestingly, the center found that those Americans who get their news from the Internet – who are typically younger and better educated – are more critical of the media than their elders. A full 68 percent of “Net-heads” say that the media disrespect ordinary folk, compared with 53 percent of the general public. The other findings reveal a streak of idealism about the media as they could be – and harsh judgmentalism about them as they are.

People understand how powerful the media are these days, even as they fragment into more and more pieces. People want reporters and pundits – and bloggers and everyone else – to use that power for good. Yes, there are debates about the definition of the good, but perhaps not as much room for disagreement as the “neutral” press has suggested in recent decades.

In the fight between good and evil, Americans are saying, loudly, neutrality is not an answer.