Mark Tapscott takes a look at the Times’ reform efforts.

Among the topics on the table is “the news/opinion divide.”

Among the most surprising - and thus far almost totally unnoticed - aspects of this story is the admission by executive editor Bill Keller that “even sophisticated readers of The New York Times sometimes find it hard to distinguish between news coverage and commentary in our pages.” That in a nutshell is what critics across the political spectrum have said of the Times for decades.

Not me. I see this as another false “divide” that just isn’t practical — you simply can’t filter out a reporter’s/editor’s bias and come out with a product called “straight news.” You can be more or less fair, and more or less inclusive, but you cannot write bias-free news.

Instead, the Times and other publications should come up with better ways of being up-front about their biases, using disclosure statements when necessary, and just dealing honestly with their opinions and being straight with readers, ra^ther than hiding behind a mask of false objectivity.

You’re a reporter. You’re a liberal activist. I can deal with that. I can still appreciate and learn from your material. What I don’t like is the condescending attitude and the lectures, and NPR trying to tell us they don’t play favorites.

Here’s a thought for the committee: the way to gain credibility among news consumers is by coming clean with who you really are.