The incoming host of the Today show marched at an anti-Bush protest. The outgoing host of the Today show marched at a pro-choice protest. Bias? What bias?

As I read your post, it appears according to you those who read the news are not to have an opinion or ever had an opinion on abortion?
Also I would surmise that those who co-host wake-up network shows, where news is presented, should not have ever stated a political preference. But if they ever have, that would taint the entire news disseminating process that is part of the show the person is now hired to.
Ever watch Fox News? Putting aside their pundits, their news reporting and wake up shows are slanted proud far right. So much so that lots of not so positive news regarding Bush or conservative is either glossed over, minimized or shipped entirely. Brit Hume serves as a pundit regularly dismissing most non conservative points of view. After hearing him on Sunday how would one think they are getting an objective newscast?
Whether you are left or right, the hallmark of a valid point of view is objectivity. Wouldn’t you say?

RC: Before Mumia Abu-Jamal murdered a policeman in Philadelphia, he worked, occassionally, in local radio. While he covered the trial of some local black radicals, he sold literature to raise funds for the group the defendants belonged to. The NPR affiliate Abu-Jamal worked for correctly judged that Abu-Jamal's courtroom-reporter/courthouse-activist act didn't conform to journalistic ethics, and fired him. That did indeed "taint" process.

Similarly, when Katie Couric and Meredith Vieira take partisan stands--by going so far as to march, something few Americans feel compelled to do--on issues that they cover it does indeed "taint" the process. Journalists take positions on all sorts of issues. That is okay. The problem is when their positions become evident in their reporting. Then they are not reporters, but advocates. I don't see Viera enough to comment, but the few times I have watched Katie Couric I got the very definite impression that she was an advocate and not someone who sought objectivity, which as you note should be a goal (not the only goal) of any presenter of the news.

Couric up until now has been a entertainment personality or hostess, certainly not a journalist. I think what we all look for in a newscast is objective reporting. In the 60s no one knew what the opinions were of Cronkite or Huntley or Brinkley. But the existance of such opinions does not invalidate the Journalist. Objectivity can be evaluated. Conservative like yourself think that just because someone votes Democratic - That makes him or her less objective.
I didn't know what Hume thought at ABC. You certainly can't say that today. It is said that Brian Williams is conservative - I can't determine that from his newscasts. Can't we evaluate each newsperson rather than examine their past activities or voting record?

Rc could you ever tell what the opinions were or are of Peter Jennings, Dan Rather or Wolf Blitzer? Could you evaluate them for us?

RC: I think you may be right about Hume. But he was a reporter at ABC. Fox is different. He's an anchor sometimes. He's an interviewer at other times. I don't think you are right about Cronkite. People pretty much knew where he stood--CBS has always been liberal--and if they didn't, he told them so when the Vietnam war took a turn for the worse. I agree that we should evaluate newscasters for what they do on the air. Couric has been an advocate of liberalism off the air, which, I am suggesting, is why she comes off as an advocate on the air.

Had CBS wanted to hire a keep-'em-guessing anchor, they might have tried Brian Lamb. Had they wanted to go with hip-but-objective, they might have tried Shepard Smith. Because they wanted a liberal (among other things), they chose Katie Couric.

"As I read your post, it appears according to you those who read the news are not to have an opinion or ever had an opinion on abortion?"
RC, I think the point Dan is trying to make is that when conservatives state that there is Media Bias at CBS, NBC and ABC, and those 3 big networks scream, "What media bias?" and then they pull a stunt by hiring a clearly Liberal "journalist" like Couric. It just makes us Conservatives sit back and say, "Told you so."

I am not sure I am interested in the "objectivity" that is claimed to be the goal of journalism. It seems to me that what is deemed objectivity is more accurately called "neutrality." For example, most political reporting follows a general form of he said/she said; first a Republican pol says X then the reporter gets a quote from a Democrat saying -X, and so on.

The ideal here then is not that of what I would think objectivity entails (truth/reality) but a neutral stance of simply being a conduit for "news makers," including spokespersons for opposing views on debated issues.

So why am I unimpressed by this ideal for reporting? Take an example like abortion. To be objective on it would mean for me to acknowledge the truth that it is a heinous act of murder of an innocent. Therefore, what I consider objective and truthful is a point of controversy for others and is exactly what is supposed to be avoided by this journalistic ideal. But what good is neutrality or agnosticism to me if I am interested in the true and real?

I think what irks me about the MSM is that they pick and choose what issues they will strive to be neutral on, and when they take a stand for what they believe is objective (true) they deny that they are failing to then be neutral, or failing to affect agnosticism.