Arthur Alpert Pic2Judging from the Albuquerque Journal’s Tuesday, Oct. 27 edition, there’s not a ghost of a chance the newspaper will emerge from its dark netherworld to do…well… journalism.

The Halloween – tinged language above is light-hearted. Not so my point – that New Mexico’s largest daily won’t suspend its assault on journalism.

The Society of Professional Journalists explains what journalism’s about:

“Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.”

Now consider that awe-full Oct. 27 issue, beginning with the Journal’s top-of-the-front-page story headlined “Pelosi’s Plan Could Boost Premiums.”

Employing the Journal’s usual modus operandi, the headline writer ignored Washington reporter Michael Coleman’s lead paragraph and his second on reimbursement rates.

Instead, he or she based the headline on an HMO executive’s speculation, thereby producing a message – in bold, black letters – calculated to inspire fear about reform.

I’ve sought other explanations for these distortions-by-headline; other than bias, that is. No luck. The Journal deliberately plants anti-health reform (or anti-Obama) headlines on the front page. Inside, too. Regularly. Which forces me to conclude the Journal, like Fox News, works for the GOP – but more on that below.

It’s the publisher’s prerogative, certainly, to oppose heath reform editorially and on its Op Ed pages. He has neither the right nor any ethical justification for shaping news to partisan, ideological ends.

Back at Coleman’s story, a box headlined, “No Obscene Profits” refers us to an AP Washington Bureau piece inside (p.4) that debunks charges medical insurers enjoy enormous profit margins.

AP Washington often masks editorials in journalistic garb, but not always, so this story may be factual. Maybe. But author Calvin Woodward never sources his debunking statistics. Which didn’t keep the Journal from printing it.

Inside, on the Journal’s editorial/Op Ed page, Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post ripped the public option. Robert Samuelson had done so the previous day.

Again, the Journal can proselytize in those pages, but decency suggests printing bold dissents, too. Like these blogged comments from Paul Krugman in the N.Y. Times, Oct. 27:

“Hiatt attacks the Senate Finance health bill for failing to include cost-control measures that, um, are very much in the legislation. All the talk of fiscal responsibility isn’t sincere — or, if you like, people like Hiatt, Robert Samuelson, and many others won’t accept any version of fiscal responsibility that doesn’t involve gutting Social Security and Medicare.”

I offer Krugman’s opinion because the Journal won’t. It publishes only right-wing economists, including so much libertarian theology the paper reads like a Rio Grande Foundation newsletter. (RGF includes local true believers in the national Church of CATO).

I compared the Journal to Fox News. The White House recently responded to abuse from that pseudo-news operation. The Journal ran an Op-Ed taking Fox’s side (in that Oct. 27 issue). It was the second within three days. The Journal’s first Fox defense emanated from Charles Krauthammer of, um, Fox News.

Now, the Journal may yet publish something critical of Fox, but don’t count on it. Both enterprises serve the GOP. Both disdain fairness, journalism’s core value.

There’s one significant exception, however – Journal staff. In that very Oct. 27 Journal, business reporter Winthrop Quigley offered a thoughtful UpFront article on corporate pay abuse. I didn’t fully agree, but that’s irrelevant. Quigley offered useful information and revealed the assumptions beneath his conclusions.

That’s fair. That’s journalism.

Quigley is typical of the Journal rank-and-file, which turns out so much good copy, it would be no trick publishing a daily newspaper chock full of journalism – and only journalism. Sadly, Journal management denies us that treat.