All of this brought to mind my initial experiences with journalism as a student at Peabody High School in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I was a sports reporter for the school newspaper and Mrs. Walker, the newspaper adviser, taught us the beginnings of the craft. She emphasized that news stories should always be about who, what, when and where and should be factual. Thus, I began an article: “Last Friday, playing at home, Peabody was trounced in a football game by Westinghouse 42-0.” The article then described what occurred in the game leading up to the unfortunate result. As our season progressed in an increasingly dismal manner, many of the students and players thought that blame should be assigned to the coach, who had had that position for about forty years and was obviously tired. So when we lost a football game to Schenley I sprinkled my column with sentences, expressing that opinion in a tactful manner.

As expected, Mrs. Walker, who reviewed all articles before they appeared, called me into her office to discuss the piece. I thought I had violated a taboo by criticizing a teacher/coach, but that was only the second of my sins. What concerned her more was that I had expressed opinions in a news article. “Those belong on the editorial or comment page,” she told me. “Never forget that.”

Fast forward about fifteen years and I was in Washington writing novels and working as a lawyer. I began reading the Washington Post and New York Times every day looking for material that was useful for the novel. What struck me again and again was how the articles even on the front page completely intermingled news and opinion. Mrs. Walker would have been horrified.

The problem arises in all contexts. The news item was that Vice President Cheney, while hunting at the ranch of a lobbyist in Texas, shot a friend of his with whom he was hunting. Other facts about this incident were subsequently disclosed, albeit slowly because of decisions made by the Vice President. But facts were disclosed. We learned, for example, that the Vice President had a beer at lunch. That’s news. However, the millions of other words about the incident were not news. They were opinions about whether the Vice President should have made his disclosure sooner, whether this revealed something horrendous about the Bush administration and so forth.

Consider the articles about Hamas on the front page of the newspapers. The news is that Hamas won the election, and therefore Hamas will form a government. Likewise, references to the covenant or constitution of Hamas calling for the destruction of the state of Israel are also fact and deserve to be reported in front page articles. But then we come to the vast body of expressions of opinion as to whether Hamas will change its position now that it is responsible for governing or whether it won’t. Will Hamas now recognize Israel, honor Palestinian agreements with Israel, or launch additional suicide bombers? There is no news on these issues. No Hamas leader has made a statement.

This isn’t to say that I’m not interested in reading expressions of opinion of what Hamas might do from qualified commentators like Charles Krauthammer, for example. However, those expressions of opinion belong on the editorial page. They should not be mixed in with what is presented as a news article.

Mrs. Walker was right in her admonishment. The media do a disservice to readers and their audience by not separating news from opinion. With such a division, we might have a better understanding of what precisely is happening in our confused and uncertain world.