A web-site called the L.A. Observer recently ran a copy of an internal memorandum from a Los Angeles Times editor to a staff writer. If this is accurate, this is an amazing admission by the mainstream media. The L.A. Observer web site credits the memo to managing editor John Carroll. It appears below:

To: SectionEds
Subject: Credibility/abortion

I'm concerned about the perception--and the occasional
reality--that the Times is a liberal, "politically correct"
newspaper. Generally speaking, this is an inaccurate view, but
occasionally we prove our critics right. We did so today with the
front-page story on the bill in Texas that would require abortion
doctors to counsel patients that they may be risking breast
cancer.

The apparent bias of the writer and/or the desk reveals itself in
the third paragraph, which characterizes such bills in Texas and
elsewhere as requiring "so-called counseling of patients." I
don't think people on the anti-abortion side would consider it
"so-called," a phrase that is loaded with derision.

The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and
breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers, but I
wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some
credible scientist who believes in it.

Such a person makes no appearance in the story's lengthy passage
about the scientific issue. We do quote one of the sponsors of
the bill, noting that he "has a professional background in
property management." Seldom will you read a cheaper shot than
this. Why, if this is germane, wouldn't we point to legislators
on the other side who are similarly bereft of scientific
credentials?

It is not until the last three paragraphs of the story that we
finally surface a professor of biology and endocrinology who
believes the abortion/cancer connection is valid. But do we quote
him as to why he believes this? No. We quote his political views.

Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is
so absurd that we don't need to waste our readers' time with it.

The reason I'm sending this note to all section editors is that I
want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all
political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a
political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is
unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to
push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times.

I'm no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it
presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific
question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A
newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss this.

John