A few weeks ago the Washington Post’s ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, published a notably misguided article in response to criticism that the Post had missed the ACORN story and other right-wing claptrap. In a fit of hysterical myopia, Alexander caved into the carping saying that…

“…traditional news outlets like The Post simply don’t pay sufficient attention to conservative media or viewpoints. “

Never mind that the ACORN story was manufactured by partisan activists engaged in political combat. And forget that the substance of the story was unverified at the time, and more recently thoroughly debunked (pdf). And set aside that even if it were true it was a trivial side issue that affected only a few maladroit volunteers and in no way reflected the views of ACORN’s management or 400,000 members. Nevertheless, Alexander concurred with critics that there was a story there that the paper had missed and that deserved equal billing to real news events like war, health care, and the economy.

All of this makes it all the more remarkable that the voice of reason on this matter has just appeared in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Thomas Frank’s column today begins with a title that pretty much says it all: “Newsrooms Don’t Need More Conservatives.” The exceedingly reasonable premise is that newsrooms are advantaged by more objectivity, not more partiality. Frank says…

“Craziest of all, though, is the prospect of the Post ditching its decades-long pursuit of the grail of objectivity . . . because it got scooped on the Acorn story. If that is all it takes to reduce the Washington Post’s vaunted editorial philosophy to ashes, what is the newspaper industry planning to do to atone for its far more consequential failures?

“Remember, this disastrous decade saw two of them: First, the news media’s failure to look critically at the Bush administration’s rationale for the Iraq War; and then, the business press’s failure to understand the depth of the subprime mortgage problem and to anticipate its massive consequences.”

Frank correctly points out that having more Republicans on the Post’s payroll would not have produced better reporting for either of the stories he cited. In fact, it would have made things demonstrably worse. Does anyone seriously believe that more conservative journalists would have challenged either President Bush or the Wall Street establishment in a way that would have enhanced the reporting or better informed readers of the impending disasters? Only the most diehard, rightist zealot could answer that in the affirmative. Frank’s answer is condensed in a profound and troubling closing paragraph:

“What the Post seems to be after is [a] form of journalism that offends nobody, that comes crawling to the powerful, that mirrors the partisan breakdown of the population as a whole. If that’s the future of journalism, we can be certain that ever more catastrophic failures await.”

Well said. And he could have added that following Alexander’s advice to pay more attention to conservative media would only result in diverting scarce resources from more pressing priorities and missing even more stories of true significance. Now we just need to get the Post to heed these words. And Mr. Frank may also want to send a copy to his employers at the Journal and his corporate cousins at Fox News.