PROPER ANALYSIS IS POWERFUL TOOL FOR READERS

The article that dominated Page A3 of the Sentinel a week ago told of
big trouble in Afghanistan: "Insurgency, opium traffic erode nation,"
the headline read.

The fifth paragraph of the article informed readers, "By failing to
stop Taliban leaders and Osama bin Laden from escaping into Pakistan,
then diverting troops and resources to Iraq before finishing the job
in Afghanistan, the Bush administration left the door open to a
Taliban comeback."

The article, by Jonathan S. Landay, the national security and
intelligence correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers, was labeled "Analysis."

It prompted an electronic-mail message from Bill Bales of Orlando,
who found it to be "a very informative piece." Questioning the
placement of analysis in the A section, though, he wrote, "I cannot
imagine you placing a news article in your Opinion & Analysis
Section, which is where, in my view, the subject piece belonged.

"I was attracted by the headline and began reading without taking
notice of the word 'Analysis'," he continued. "I was well into the
article when I realized I was reading both facts and opinions."

Analysis is not supposed to contain the writer's opinion, and it may
be a matter of opinion whether that one did.

The Sentinel takes great pains to separate impartial news reports
from opinion -- by placing the latter on the editorial pages,
labeling it as commentary or making clear that it is a review.
Everything else, other than advertising, should be news -- except
analysis, which falls somewhere in between.

Journalists' first lesson is to learn that news articles should
answer the five Ws and an H: who, what, when, where, why and how.
Most news reports seem to cover those subjects in just about that
order -- but they don't always get to the last W or the H.

That's where analysis comes in, providing the background to what
occurred, the context in which it happened and, most importantly, why
it happened. Analysis can include very valuable -- if not
indispensable -- information for readers trying to understand an
issue amid conflicting accounts from people with something valuable
on the line.

That kind of information sometimes is needed more frequently than
once a week, which is how often the Opinion & Analysis section
appears. The occasional presence of such context, though, leads some
detractors who can't think of specific complaints to suggest that the
newspaper slants the news.

I don't think so -- at least not by design.

Publishing analysis without labeling it as such, however, certainly
lends credence to that charge.

That's what happened Monday with another report from McClatchy
Newspapers, this one by Margaret Talev, who covers Congress and
national politics. The headline read, "Leaving a 'do-nothing' legacy"
and "The 109th Congress has abused its power and achieved little,
scholars say."

Commenting on a litany of the current Congress' shortcomings in that
article, reader Kaye Yonge suggested in an e-mail message that it
should have been on the opinion page and complained, "The first
column consisted of her [Talev's] opinion."

It was a little tougher on the Republicans than it was on the
Democrats. Of course, Republicans control both houses of the Congress
being analyzed, and it also made clear, "Voters aren't happy with
either party." Also it did contain opinion -- that of the
aforementioned scholars, not the writer.

Still, it was analysis, as it was marked when it appeared in the
Sacramento Bee, the newspaper from which Talev had gone to Washington
- -- but not so identified by the Sentinel, as it should have been.

Analysis is useful -- and in some cases necessary -- to understand
complex issues. It should not, however, contain the writer's opinion,
and it should always be identified as analysis