Wait, you said what?

In a recent Sunday editorial in this newspaper touching on the topic of editorial bias, the author seems to cheerfully embrace the notion that editorials are at their best when they’re biased. You heard that greed is good? Well, it turns out that bias is good also. To accuse the Democrat-Gazette of bias is, as it were, to throw Br’er Rabbit into the brier patch.

So biased editorials are good editorials?

If you use the word “bias” as I believe it’s ordinarily used (and how else would we use it if we want to be understood?), the thesis here is more than a little problematic.

Perhaps, much to my embarrassment, I’m just slow in recognizing a

tongue-in-cheek exercise of creative journalism praising an obvious fault or failure, not unlike, for example, an exercise writing an essay with the title, “In Praise of Sloth.” At the end of the essay you don’t necessarily believe the author believes that sloth is a good thing any more than you do.

If on the other hand the author’s words should be taken at face value, then this reader, well into his eighth decade but always ready to learn something new, would greatly appreciate a supplemental editorial completing the sentence prompt, “A biased editorial is a good editorial because …”

If possible, semantic leaps that torture the word “bias” beyond recognition are to be avoided. CLEVE MAY

Little Rock