Journalists are supposed to be fair. Let me emphasize the words “supposed to be” for this discussion.

For the most part, syndicated columnists are still considered to be journalists and should rely on fairness and facts to flavor their columns, not vitriol and partisan praise. However, this recent election saw a lot of partisan praise on the pages of the S-R, and most of it leaned in one direction.

Reader and local media critic Jack Thompson sent me a study he conducted of various S-R columnists, in which he concluded that 66 percent of all the syndicated columns published on the opinion pages between July 1 and Sept. 8 were left-leaning. While I could not replicate his exact study, in part because we have a difference of opinion about exactly where to place certain columns (extreme left, moderate, middle, right or far right), I do agree there was a larger number of columns that had a more left of center viewpoint than right.

This being said, there is a significant point that must be addressed: In this year’s election at least two traditionally conservative Republican columnists and one liberal Democratic columnist switched sides. This made it very difficult to gauge the writer’s left-right leanings using the traditional measures.

Selecting which syndicated columnists to print is not an exact science, and Editorial Page Editor Doug Floyd said he does strive for an ideological balance, although he said the most important question might be the selection of which columns to run rather than which columnists.

“We have many more columns to choose from on any given day than we have space, so even if we have achieved perfect political equilibrium at the subscription stage, we could blow it by picking disproportionately from one end of the spectrum over another,” Floyd said. “You also make a good point that while a columnist may be known as a liberal or conservative, he or she may present a commentary that takes an unexpected stand – Kathleen Parker saying nice things about Obama and criticizing Sarah Palin, for example. Froma Harrop, generally pretty liberal, had compliments for a health care plan outlined by George Bush.”

One way for the S-R to solve part of this issue is to anchor certain columnists on certain days, a move made by many newspapers for consistency and balance in opinions, and which was announced by Floyd in a column yesterday. This stops any tendency of an editor to remove a column because he or she wants another viewpoint on any given day. Of course, that does not address the issue of what happens when a columnist makes a sudden change, but it does keep the balance of opinion more even.

Columnists aside, Thompson also calculated certain letters to the editor in his compilation. Obviously, letters to the editor are far different from local and syndicated columnists, and many editors are often faced with a tidal wave of letters for one side or the other during a campaign season.

Letters coordinator Lynn Swanbom said that while she attempted a balanced approach, there were times when one side or the other was overwhelming. For example, she said, the newspaper received far more pro-Obama letters than pro-McCain letters. When she explained it to a reader, there were suddenly many more pro-McCain letters arriving. While an equal time rule may not be feasible, she did say she has one observation about the process.

“I can’t in good conscience or ethical journalism allow letters with clear factual errors into print, and political ads and forwarded e-mails have spawned anti-Obama letters rife with inaccurate information,” Swanbom said. “Attacks on McCain are usually more generalized opinions expressed as such (usually dislike of Bush with the contention that McCain will be just the same), and so they aren’t rejected due to factual problems.”

But plenty of letters on both sides of the debate were rejected for name calling, obscenity, lack of facts and other reasons, she said, adding that balance is often difficult to achieve because of the nature of politics.

In his comments, Thompson said The Spokesman-Review has a decided left wing. Even factoring in the disagreements of placement on some columns and the switching sides of certain columnists, I can’t disagree. And this bothers me for one reason, the statement I made at the start of this column.

Journalists are supposed to be fair. We are supposed to give all sides of an issue, not concentrate on one side or the other. Granted, being fair is difficult – it is flat hard to get all the facts and all sides of a story and keep a personal opinion outside the mix.

But by allowing too many of one side or the other in opinion columnists, the S-R is doing just what it should not: Disrupting the critical balance of ideas in favor of ideology. We as journalists should not favor one side over the other. We need to provide the marketplace of ideas – all ideas – in a format that is equal so we can foster intelligent discussion of what matters to us as a society.