Thomas Frank fails to see the wisdom of the Washington Post ombudsman's recommendation that that paper pay more attention to "conservative media or viewpoints" (The Tilting Yard: "Newsrooms Don't Need More Conservatives," Dec. 16).
Using his example, while a liberal such as Mr. Frank might name a topic "the subprime lending industry and its relationship to Wall Street" and investigate predatory lending practices, a conservative might label it "the subprime industry and its relationship to government" and inquire about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's relaxation of lending standards while Sen. Chris Dodd and others obtained below-market loans from Angelo Mozilla at Countrywide Mortgage.
Hint: There's a reason the Wall Street Journal publishes columns by Thomas Frank and Holman Jenkins Jr. (Business World) next to each other every Wednesday.
Henry M. Dachowitz
New York
While it's true that newsrooms probably don't need more conservatives, there's no room for more liberals either. Trained as a journalist, I actually remember working in newsrooms, both print and broadcast, where the accepted norm was for reporters to grill their interview subjects regardless of political, economic or social persuasion—literally, to question everything. And if they didn't, they were sure to be unceremoniously upbraided, or even dismissed, by grizzled and cynical editors. No longer, and not for a long time.
And with specific regard to Mr. Frank's analysis of the subprime mortgage meltdown, a lot of folks saw it coming. There were repeated warnings, both on Capitol Hill and in some of the news magazines. But we would have had to have the public gumption to deny credit where it wasn't economically or financially feasible.
Denying mortages was morally equated with Ebenezer Scrooge. So now, instead of a few Americans losing mortgages, many are. And where's the justice in that?
Richard W. Walker
Fort Worth, Texas
Whether you agree with Thomas Frank's progressive politics or not, you have to admire his moxie in making the case that left-wing media bias, if it exists at all, is a good thing for America. Ideological diversity, in Mr. Frank's view, would just lead to right-wing fanatics in the newsroom interfering with real investigative journalism by unbiased left-wing ideologues.
That's because the left has the intellectual capacity and curiosity to challenge conventional wisdom and to hold power accountable while the right mindlessly bows to power, as long as it's wielded by conservatives and leads to war or economic chaos.
Mr. Frank makes a halfhearted attempt to discount accusations of left-wing media bias by referring to one study by Media Matters for America (a left-of-center organization) that detected a conservative bias in newsrooms. As he well knows, every other credible media watchdog has confirmed a distinct liberal bias in news reporting.
Mr. Frank's own bias is most evident when he accuses news outlets of failing the public by not exposing predatory lending practices prior to and during the subprime crisis. But isn't it just as accurate to attribute the mortgage meltdown to fraudulent or irresponsible borrowing?
Millions of borrowers lied on mortgage applications; lenders shared blame because they ignored those lies and didn't serve as financial advisers when approving borrowers for loans that they couldn't afford.
That's the other side of the ideological coin that rarely sees the light of day in most left-leaning newsrooms. Inbreeding is unhealthy in villages and it's unhealthy in newsrooms where token conservatives tend to be of the Arlen Specter variety. Such newsrooms full of liberals begetting liberals will soon be yesterday's news, as readers and viewers continue turning to alternative sources of information.
Paul Russell
Nashville, Tenn.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 