but he perfectly illustrated one form, the bias of omission:

But sometimes it's not what papers get wrong or make up that bothers a reader -- it's what they ignore.



Let's do a little speculation. Say there's this Christian guy who's a fervent Second Amendment advocate. He writes letters to the newspaper demanding war against Muslims; he wants more nuclear weapons, and opposes treaties that ban landmines. Let's say the fellow puts on a bulletproof vest, stuffs some handguns in his pockets, heads off to his old college and shoots three people. Do you think any of those details about his interests and convictions would make the story?

Sure. He'd be the Timothy-McVeigh-of-the-Month. He'd be the subject of a dozen op-eds and editorial cartoons; commentators the world over would note how George W. Bush's mad militaristic unilateralism had produced this poisonous fruit. By the end of the week you'd think the guy had ridden in the jet that took Bush to the USS Lincoln.

Well, there was a campus shooting last week. The shooter was Biswanath Halder, who was an anti-war, anti-gun Muslim who wrote letters to the editor protesting Iraqi sanctions and the campaign against Saddam. His Web site is devoted to anti-war, anti-US screeds.

Relevance factor, according to the hallowed gatekeepers: zip. Since none of this information appeared in the stories, you might assume that the reporters were incurious about his political leanings -- or, having discovered the particulars, were disinclined to share them. Neither option is heartening.

But The Times did zero in on the crucial detail of the story: the architectural signficance of the building where this man did his shooting.