Criticism of Lords of the Press quite naturally interests us, even if we are only local baronets in the trade. The past few months have been especially piquant, therefore, thanks to the charges and breast-beatings that have swirled across the nation in the wake of some of the worst journalism ever seen during an election year.

Yet, all this appropriate outrage should not obscure the multitude of honest editors and reporters, nor, especially, the problem they face. There is the vexing question of objectivity, a difficult quality to define and almost impossible to attain. Various periodicals, notably the Reporter, claim that the current concept of objectivity is simply a comfortable illusion. They say reporters should add a measure of interpretation and analysis to news stories.

This assault on a conventional ideal of the press is not such blasphemy as it might appear, for objectivity always has, is now, and ever will be a myth. Viewed narrowly, of course, nothing could be more accurate than a mere record of what was done at a particular time, but this is mere playing with words. What is important is the effect on the reader, and there is no more misleading article than one which simply reprints, say, every charge men like McCarthy make. Developments in foreign policy, atomic exhibitions, gyrations in the price of AT&T stock, and other such events where no one knows for sure all that is actually going on are also easily misunderstood if reported without benefit of additional explanations.

While some stories require treatment like this, others do not. A prison riot, for example, could be written up without any comment at all on the reporter's part. On the other hand, if the prison's warden blamed the fracas on a niggardly budget, then the article should include figures on what that budget was and perhaps how it compares to those in other states. Where interpretation is needed and where it is not should be left up to the editors and reporters themselves.

Needless to say, this brand of objectivity is not overly popular. Most complaints, though, are based on blindness to a basic distinction: the difference between slanting and interpretation. To the uninitiated in this long-standing controversy, both appear interchangeable. They are not. Where slanting means conscious distortion in the interests of whatever axe one wants to grind, interpretation implies as pure an intent as straight recitation. Its purpose is not to-exclude relevant facts, but to construct as complete a picture of events as possible.

That the choice of relevant background and interpretive material depends on a fallible reporter, that distortions might be planned and the power to analyze abused is no argument against this method. No matter what standard is set, after all, there will be someone who abuses it. As an ideal, however, the risk of distortion by a human is far preferable to the near inevitability of perversion that comes from mere reprinting.

Objectivity, then, should no longer be an inflexible, absolute standard. The least journalists could do is stop confusing themselves with mechanical concepts and allow the widest latitude in selecting background and analysis to include in news articles. Otherwise, honest newspapers and news magazines will continue misleading their readers under the guise of "objectivity."