There is no more fundamental distinction in journalism than the one between fact and opinion.  The longstanding general rule is that reporters should limit themselves to the facts and attribute opinion so that the public can decide for itself what the information means, while editorial writers, columnists and commentators may freely offer their opinion so long as it is indicated as such under the banner of the editorial page, viewpoints section, or news analysis heading.

The ethical corollary to this journalistic separation between fact and opinion is that reporters should not compromise the objectivity of the news by disclosing their personal opinions to the public, especially about the controversial subjects they cover.  Of course, these ethical boundaries assume that journalists understand the difference between fact and opinion -- which we have learned once again isn't always so.

The latest case study comes from not an unexpected place, the New York Times.  Four months ago, Pulitzer Prize-winning Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse gave a speech at Harvard University when she accepted the honor of being the Radcliffe Institute Medalist for 2006.  Her remarks, entitled "A Bridge Over Troubled Water," recalled when and explained why she found herself crying her way through the second half of a Simon and Garfunkel reunion concert that she had attended a few years earlier.

Greenhouse told her audience that she "cried that night ... out of the realization" that her generation of the 1960s had failed miserably "when our turn came to run the country," that her generation had "not do[ne] a better job," that "[w]e had not learned from the old mistakes." 

Indeed, for emphasis, Greenhouse then noted that she had reached her bleak conclusion even "before we knew the worst of it, before it was clear the extent to which our government had turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and other places around the world." 

And, she reminded her audience to "not forget the sustained assault on women's reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism."  In her words, "to say that these last years have been dispiriting is an understatement."

Nevertheless, Greenhouse eventually concluded that her despair had been shortsighted.  She embraced the definition of herself as "woman, American, Caucasian, Jew, wife, mother, daughter, sister, straight, journalist, temporarily able-bodied, pushing 60, Democrat, Radcliffe graduate," and observed that in her "lifetime, I have seen the fences around nearly all these definitions lowered." 

As a result, she claimed that she once again felt "a growing sense of obligation to reach across the absurd literal fence that some of our policy makers want to build on the Mexican border and to do what I can to help those whose only offense is to want to improve their lives."

Now, from a reporter, these were unusual remarks, especially since many of them commented personally and politically on issues that time and time again had come and continue to be brought before the Supreme Court of the United States -- the beat Greenhouse covers.  The speech made it perfectly clear what Greenhouse thought about the War on Terror, abortion, religion in public life and illegal immigration.  But what was even more shocking was Greenhouse's explanation -- and rationalization -- for her commentary.

After the speech was discovered, many began debating whether Greenhouse had crossed journalism's ethical boundary for reporters -- public objectivity.  Indeed, two weeks ago the issue received a public airing by Greenhouse's employer, the New York Times, when the newspaper's Public Editor, Byron Calame, penned a column under the headline "Hazarding Personal Opinions in Public Can Be Hazardous for Journalists."

Calame explained that the Times has long had an ethical guideline for news staffers, stating they "should avoid expressing views that go beyond what they would be allowed to say in the paper."  In the words of the Public Editor, "[i]t seems clear to me that Ms. Greenhouse stepped across that line during her speech." 

After all, as Calame noted, a "news article containing the phrase 'the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism' would get into the paper only as a direct quote from a source."  In other words, there could be no question that Greenhouse had impermissibly expressed her own personal opinions to the public when they should have been kept private.

Nevertheless, Greenhouse had a response.  Calame stated in his column that "Ms. Greenhouse told me she considers her remarks to be 'statements of fact' -- not opinion -- that would be allowed to appear in a Times news article." 

To this, we have no response other than the one Greenhouse's own daughter apparently made "at age thirteen or so": "Face it, mom, you le[a]d a sheltered life."  Indeed, it is quite telling that one of the news media elite's most successful practitioners believes only her own side of the political, social and cultural debate in this country has a monopoly on the facts.  It proves that America doesn't suffer from liberal news bias -- rather, it is utter blindness.