Welcome back to "That Just Ain't Right."

I want to thank you all for your responses to last week's column, both pro and con. There were omissions that concerned some of you, and I will hopefully address those issues momentarily. The conversation that occurred was certainly lively and interesting.

I can only encourage everyone to continue to join in our weekly dialogue.

This is only our second column together, but I'm feeling comfortable, so I am going to really open up. Today, I would like to share a little story and request your thoughts and perceptions about a subject dear to my heart, journalistic integrity.

The Constitution infers a "watchdog press" — an uncensored dialogue with the citizens of the country that is unfettered — under law — from politics, government propaganda or covert government pressure, holding a special privilege that provides journalists the right to ask the tough questions of politicians.

Last week I was watching TV coverage concerning accusations that the media failed in its responsibility to vigorously question the administration's motives for the war in Iraq. Yet "Ma and Pa" America (and apparently the vast majority of newspapers in this country) expect that newspapers are somehow required to tell them who they should vote for in the next local and national election. Hence the question: Why do newspapers insist on endorsing political candidates?

One day in journalism class we had a guest speaker — it was (at the time) the newly appointed editor of the Wisconsin State Journal.

During the course of the lecture, she made a very curious comment, "Perhaps the most difficult decision I have made during my short tenure was to make the final decision about which candidates the paper would endorse." This, by the way, was during the Bush presidential campaign in 2004. The paper endorsed George W.

I about flew out of my seat! The majority of her talk was centered on what the paper was doing to counter statistics indicating national newspaper readership among 17-29 year-olds is virtually non-existent and falling. But what are the reasons for this?

I don't believe the media understand the total disconnection of this generation, especially when it comes to understanding the relationship with a journalistic medium. They are losing the readership of a generation that believes the same medium is in bed with the politicians in Washington.

So, the idiot that I am, I raised my hand. Sure enough she called on me. I tucked my hair up under my hat and rose to the occasion.

"Is it possible that the main reason young people don't read newspapers anymore is because the young perceive that their local paper is no longer part of any possible solution?" I said. "Is it possible the young feel that mainstream journalists have lost credibility because of practices like endorsing political candidates?"

She justified the practice by saying they are published on the opinion page, and it has been a long-standing norm since the early 1900s. After the lecture I had at least 15 people come up to me and say they agreed with my position.

It is my humble opinion that the duty of journalists is to inform, educate, document and enlighten the citizens of this country. The moment a journalist endorses one candidate over another, at the very least — if only on a sub-conscious level — he or she has become biased and no longer able to perform the job he or she was hired to accomplish. At the worst, the journalist becomes little more than a propagandist.

When a newspaper makes endorsements, it is labeled as either conservative or liberal. I thought the job of a newspaper was to present all sides of the issues. How can papers do that honestly while publicly offering up opinions about the worthiness of one candidate over another?

Tell me what you think, folks. Because I'm thinking, "That just ain't right."

For those who entered the dialogue online over this last weekend, thanks again. To briefly answer some of the questions that were asked, here are the answers.

1. Our adult son was arguing with his mother. I was studying, quietly. I called!

2. I didn't want the officer to be bitten by the pit bull who was standing behind the front door.

3. Yes, I was. For two grams, 13 years ago. I paid an appropriate $200 fine.

4. I never said it wasn't illegal. I do believe, however, that I am a better judge of what I put into my body than the government is. I retain that right and have always been accountable for my actions.

5. Justice demands a realistic punishment. Particularly when there are laws on the book recognizing this was an insignificant infraction.

6. There is a city ordinance decriminalizing small amounts in your own residence, and a second that dictates a civil fine within the city limits.

7. I never tolerated any of my children experimenting with drugs or alcohol until they were adults and had completed their education.

Bill Klousie is a junior majoring in journalism and zoology. Send your comments and story ideas to ([email protected]).