Yesterday, I wrote a post in which I ripped into a Washington Square News column that I believed (and still believe) was sloppy, poorly-reasoned, and downright corrosive to serious discussion of the issues. My response triggered something of a shitstorm in the comments, with several people accusing me of bias, shoddy journalism, dishonesty and a fanatical devotion to Barack Obama.

Let’s be clear: I stand by every word of my post, the occasional typo excluded. I got all my facts straight, I believe my reasoning was solid, and, most importantly, everything I wrote was fully consistent with the ethical standards I would expect of any other journalist.

That last point is the most contentious one–in fact, it seems every time I post something anyone disagrees with, I end up having to reiterate those standards. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s starting to get tired of it. So in the interest of not getting dragged into the same argument ad nauseam, here’s an overview of the standards I use when writing and editing for the National section.

Let’s start with the accusations of bias, since that seems to be the most popular point of contention. And to be fair, the critics are right about one thing: pretty much every single post run in the National section has some amount of opinion in it. What they get wrong is the idea that there’s anything unethical or dishonest about that.

That’s because I have never claimed that the National section is an objective news source. In fact, if I catch my writers trying to post anything in unbiased-newspaper-speak, I tell them to loosen up and add in more of their own voice and views. The reason for this is that I prioritize transparency and honesty over objectivity. Any news that gets reported will be filtered through that reporter’s perceptions and personal prejudices, no matter how hard they try to fight it, and by acknowledging those prejudices I’m trying to do the reader a service. The better NYU Local readers knows where my writers and I are coming from, the better they’ll be able to take in what we report critically and make their own decisions. I trust my readers are smart enough to distinguish my personal opinion from fact.

Besides, I view analysis and commentary as 95% of our jobs here. I mean, sure, in an ideal world, I would love to be Josh Marshall. But the fact is that we don’t have the time, staff, money or resources to keep up with all the other outlets doing original reporting on American politics. Nor, I think, do we have much reason to want to; this is primarily a news site for NYU students. National is a feature, an added bonus. Our role is to take everything that those other outlets are reporting on and distill it down to something palatable. The commentary we provide, besides letting us be upfront about our personal biases, is also one thing we have to offer that the Washington Post can’t. You won’t find a Rob Stengel or Surekha Ratnatunga over there, and our hope is that you’ll appreciate the unique outlooks of some of your peers.

But just because our approach differs from that of a traditional organization does not mean that we don’t take our jobs seriously. While objectivity isn’t important to me, accuracy and a strong logical foundation are both crucial. I require that all of my writers cite every specific factual claim they make, preferably with a link, so that it is easy for the reader to go and check that their premises are correct. In addition, I will not run any post featuring an unsound argument. Ideas matter, and while I encourage my writers to express their opinions, those opinions have to be thoughtful, based in fact, and well-reasoned.

Of course, I’m the one who makes the final call on whether or not those arguments are fit to print. But despite the charges of bias, I will never, ever refuse to run a post simply because I disagree with it. In fact, even though I may be a dirty New York Jew Red, I actually want more conservatives in my section. I encourage debate amongst my writers, and frankly, there hasn’t been enough of it. So if you disagree with everything we stand for and you can argue it well, then you should email me, and we’ll talk about bringing you aboard. Just keep in mind that I hold every one of my writers to the same standards, and won’t print a dissenting view for diversity’s sake alone.

Lastly: Part of championing transparency is being able to admit when you’re wrong. If you see a flaw in one of our arguments, and especially if you see a factual error, let us know in the comments. If it’s a factual error, we will post a correction. But even if it’s just a flaw in the writer’s argument, part of that writer’s job would be to respond in the comments. I will take to task any writer who refuses to engage with legitimate, good-faith criticisms of his or her work.

I don’t know if I can be much clearer than that. And although I’m post this now partially out of frustration, I’m beginning to think I should have written it on the very first day of editing, back in freshman year. This is the last time I’m going to bother explaining how I edit; next time someone bemoans NYU Local’s “bias” in the comments, I’ll just link back to this post and call it a day.

That being said, a willingness to admit error and adjust is one of the foundations of our philosophy over here. I’ll freely admit that I haven’t lived up to my own ethical standards in the past, and I’m sure there will be cases in the future where I won’t either. It’s your job to take me to task in those moments. And if you take issue with any of the guidelines I’ve outlined here, or think they’re not enough, I’m eager to hear from you.

Photo by Flickr user GiantsFanatic used under a Creative Commons license.