Michael Kinsley, founder of the American Internet mag Slate and instigator of the Los Angeles Times brief experiment with wikitorials, writes a snarky article for his present employer, the Guardian, knocking the New York Times for its new policy of physically distinguishing fact and opinion in the paper (somewhat ironic that he published it in a British paper, isn't it?)

In an earlier article for Time Magazine, Kinsley suggested that American journalism could evolve into something like British journalism as American newspapers adapt to millions of bloggers with opinions: "The Brits have never bought into the American separation of reporting and opinion. They assume that an intelligent person, paid to learn about some subject, will naturally develop views about it. And they consider it more truthful to express those views than to suppress them in the name of objectivity."

In this sense, although he thinks that the Times format modifications are a good start, Kinsley also sees the changes, which involve distinctly placed bylines and ragged right columns, as an insult to the paper's readers. 

The opinion debate even affects American journalists when they are not acting on behalf of their paper. Newsweek reports that NYT Supreme Court correspondent Linda Greenhouse divulged her opinions on several matters during a June speech at Harvard Law School, raising questions about her objectivity. Now that readers know her views, can they ever really consider her reporting to be unbiased?

NYT's first ombudsman, Daniel Okrent, commented favorably on Greenhouse's speech, saying that reporters should become part of the discussion on issues. During his tenure as ombudsman, Okrent never received a complaint about Greenhouse so as far as he can tell, her reporting is unbiased.

But Okrent doesn't go so far as to say that American journalism should move towards the British model. In fact he says the opposite: "Greenhouse's views should not come into her work, which they don't, even though we now know that she has very strong political views."

Kinsley and Okrent don't see eye to eye at all on the role of opinion in newspapers. When asked if he considers if media bias can really be avoided, Okrent somewhat weakly responded, "Obviously (bias) exists in individuals, and it exists in institutions, but it does not exist in all individuals, and it does not exist in all institutions. It's like anything else in the world, there are those who do it right and those who do it wrong."

Kinsley, on the other hand, gives journalists the benefit of the doubt in voicing their beliefs: "One of the people best able to judge whether Bush is a bozo is the journalist who has been watching his every remark and gesture. Yet the reporter's views on the subject are supposed to be banned from the very newspaper that has paid him or her to acquire them. Either that or he or she must wear a yellow armband reading "opinion" in order to warn readers away."

But perhaps the real problem lies in American papers' fear of bias. Of the New York Times' opinion distinctions Kinsley writes, "This exercise by the nation's most distinguished newspaper rests on the dubious double premise that opinions are inherently bad - dangerous, irresponsible, unpatriotic - but that their dire effects can be neutralised by simply labelling them as opinions...Are these 'Caution: Opinion Ahead' warnings like the warning labels on cigarettes, intended to scare you away? If opinions are that dreadful, why are newspapers even wasting ink on the filthy things?"

Is it not possible for a journalist to express opinion without resorting to partisan ramblings? Doesn't the view of someone who knows an issue inside and out provide value for the paper's readers? Would it be feasible for American papers to use the endless space that the Internet provides to allow their journalists to voice their own opinion at the end of an objective article, inciting discussion among readers and making the newspaper the moderator of a debate? Would this not give the journalist more flexibility while simultaneously making the paper more transparent and more credible?

It's doubtful that this debate will end any time soon. In the meantime, maybe American papers, for the sake of keeping their reporting objective, could adopt an online method of commentary: journalists and editors could reflect their own secret opinions by linking to the best in blog commentary. This would surely establish closer relationships with readers as well as please them by giving them new outlets where they can express themselves.

If this were to happen, however, it is likely that American papers would be on the road to loosening the reigns on their reporters' hidden beliefs in order to compete in a world where everyone can publish an opinion.