Editor's note. Today my wife and I celebrate our 27th wedding anniversary. Happy anniversary, Lisa!

As we head into the weekend, I'd like to offer several items for your consideration.

Terry Mattingly is a syndicated columnist and contributor to an excellent website. A post that appeared yesterday was an add-on to a previous series he'd composed about how the media was covering a particularly sensitive topic this election season.

That series sparked in Mr. Mattingly further reflections on an in-house memo written May 22, 2003, by then Los Angeles Times editor James Carroll. It dealt in unusually straightforward language with the newspaper's tilted coverage of abortion. Mattingly says of the memo (which was leaked and reprinted widely), "I have been using it in classrooms ever since as an eloquent plea for reporting that is fair and accurate to voices on both sides of tense and complicated public debates."

I'm commenting on this for the simple reason that, as Mattingly observes, "Of course, in media-bias studies, abortion never dies as a hot topic. Just wait for the fall campaign and discussions of the U.S. Supreme Court." We've already seen shades of it, largely in the form of journalists doing everything possible to minimize/sanitize Sen. Barack Obama's over-the-top support not only of abortion, but also his cold-hearted resistance to giving ordinary medical assistance to babies who survive abortions.

Carroll began his memo by observing that "I'm concerned about the perception---and the occasional reality---that the Times is a liberal, 'politically correct' newspaper. Generally speaking, this is an inaccurate view, but occasionally we prove our critics right. We did so today with the front-page story on the bill in Texas that would require abortion doctors to counsel patients that they may be risking breast cancer."

What was wrong with the story? Let me count the ways. Actually, I won't, because they are so many and so egregious. But for purposes of looking ahead to coverage of abortion over the next five months, let me just offer a quick laundry list of flaws:

* Loaded language that trivializes (and dismisses) the intent of a proposed pro-life law.

* Copy that leads the reader to believe that no qualified person--let alone a scientist--could possible believe there is a connection between induced abortion and an increase in the risk of breast cancer.

* Cheapshots. As Carroll wrote, "We do quote one of the sponsors of the bill, noting that he 'has a professional background in property management.' Seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this. Why, if this is germane, wouldn't we point to legislators on the other side who are similarly bereft of scientific credentials?"

* Cheapshots, part two. It is not until the final three paragraphs that the story finally quotes Joel Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology who, as Carroll points out, "believes the abortion/cancer connection is valid," But, Carroll asks, "do we quote him as to why he believes this? No. We quote his political views. Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don't need to waste our readers' time with it."

Carroll concludes that the reason he was sending this memo out to all section editors was because "I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage." He added this brutally candid assessment of the culture of the newsroom: "We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times."

Of course, the Los Angeles Times remains irremediably liberal. It may not be good journalism to tilt your news coverage so one-sidedly, but if that's what they want, they will have to live with the consequences. (For this and many other reasons, the Times has been in a constant downward cycle.)

But as the press hammers McCain on abortion for being pro-life and camouflages Obama's extreme advocacy, we can hope that some other editors may take Carroll's concluding paragraph to heart:

"I'm no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same."

Please send your comments to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

See Part Two: "The Bitter Irony of Female Feticide"