I recently received a complaint that writers who agree with our editorial opinions -- or who at least don't outright criticize us -- get preferential treatment by having their letters published more quickly. And the person making the complaint pointed to a letter to the editor essentially agreeing with one of our positions that was obviously published very quickly. Meanwhile, the complaintant's letter -- which was critical of the same position -- had been delayed before it was published.

"I think you can see how it looks," the writer said.

Another reader used pretty much those same words when she called to complain about photos we published on the front page June 9.

The photos of Hillary Clinton and John McCain were unflattering, according to the caller, and selected to make readers (and voters) think badly of them. The photo of Barack Obama, again according to the caller, was flattering and selected to make readers (and voters) think well of him.

"You can see how it looks," she said, with a meaning that was both literal and political. "You so clearly favor Obama it's disgusting."

Again, it was evidence enough for her.

I can explain evidence:

In the first case, the truth is that letters take different times to process. When there are no burning issues that create a flood of letters to the editor, our turn-around time can be very quick for a straightforward letter in which we have no questions. If we are able to verify quickly that it came from the person who signed it, and we don't have a backlog of letters waiting, it can be as fast as a single day.

In the second case ... Really? To my eye, the three headshots are equally "neutral" -- none is more or less flattering than the others.

What I am less able to explain is that we simply are not interested in (nor capable of) the conspiracy ascribed to us.

(As another editor I know used to say, "We can't conspire to change the toilet paper, let alone the world.")

But I can repeat three issues that play a part in why readers believe there is a media conspiracy, at both the local and national level.

1. You are told such a conspiracy exists.

Rush Limbaugh may not have coined the term "liberal media elite," but he certainly popularized it -- and it's a drum he and many others continue to beat relentlessly. The term "mainstream media" -- which is often used interchangeably with "liberal media elite" -- has become so common that it's often abbreviated MSM, and readers know what it means.

My problem with both terms is the way they are used: When Limbaugh (and others) agree with the way news is presented, nothing is ever said. If they don't, the news organization or individual is labeled MSM -- and worse -- before being ridiculed and discarded.

That approach allows for no discussion, and no dissent. It simply turns complex shades of gray into stark and oversimplified black and white.

Remember that Rush and others like him make a living criticizing others. That's not how we sell newspapers. We believe our stock and trade is objective journalism, in providing the information our readers need to draw your own conclusions.

2. You begin to look for evidence that confirms the drumbeat -- and you believe you've found it.

Such is the case of photographs, where both beauty and message are often in the eye of the beholder.

An example: Over the last eight-plus years, I've received numerous calls charging the Yakima Herald-Republic with selecting the most unattractive photos possible of President George W. Bush.

Every caller has said some version of, "You do this on purpose because you don't support the president."

My response is always the same:

Whether you believe George Bush to be the best president the country has ever had, or the worst, you have to agree on one thing: He is not a photogenic man.

We look for news photos that best illustrate the story, that add information to the written word and that will draw readers' interest to the news. There is simply no other agenda (political or otherwise) or evidence in the photos we select.

3. Sometimes you're right, but for different reasons.

Journalists throw around the word "objectivity" as though it's something tangible and absolutely true.

News reporting should be objective in the sense that we as reporters and editors do not take sides, and make every effort to report all sides of issues. That, in fact, is our training.

Our training also teaches us to put aside our own beliefs and opinions and focus instead on what information is important for readers.

It might make more sense if we talked less about objectivity and more about fairness.

Longtime Lewiston (Idaho) Morning Tribune publisher Butch Alford uses a story about journalism icon Edward R. Murrow as an example of the difference between the two:

Murrow saw the blacklisting that grew out of Sen. Joe McCarthy's 1950s-era Communist crusade as both wrong and unfair. And his now-classic reporting on the topic was truthful and fair. But it was not balanced nor very objective; Murrow never tried to convince his audience that he had no opinion, but he argued only the facts.

Like Murrow, we are all products of our culture, our environment and our upbringing. And that does show itself in some "bias" that you can find any day at any news organization. Some of the things we believe are:

* Education is important.

* Democracy works better than tyranny.

* Americans should vote, and those elections should be fair.

* In general, peace is better than war.

* Hungry people should be fed, sick people should be tended to, children should be cared for.

* And we, like most other Americans, do tend to root for the underdog.

There are times when you point out "evidence" of other bias to us, and we take a look at it. Sometimes you're right, and we have been unaware of some preconceived notion that was affecting how we make news decisions or how a story is presented.

More often, it may be that we simply disagree about how important some piece of news is in our community.

And sometimes readers are just seeing evidence that is not there.

But just as we try to provide a check on government -- another one of those things we believe is necessary -- readers (and the Limbaughs of the world) help keep us in check. We actually do appreciate the dialogue, when it's civil.

When you contact me and we discuss it, I'm pretty sure I don't change your mind. But I want to talk about it nonetheless; the way you perceive the Herald-Republic is important to us, and it helps shape the hundreds of news decisions we make every day.

* Sarah Jenkins is editor of the Yakima Herald-Republic. If you have a question or concern, you can reach her at 577-7703; P.O. Box 9668, Yakima WA 98909; or sjenkins@yakimaherald.com.