Much of the mistrust of the news media today centers on their political tone or, more accurately, their perceived tone. This building crescendo of criticism will intensify, as it does every four years, during the presidential campaign.

Are the media liberal or conservative? The flashpoint of this raging debate generally centers on Fox News, which, despite being angrily targeted by liberals for what they believe is a conservative skew in reporting national and international news, has gained legions of viewers.

An example of the “other side,” yet not nearly as successful, is MSNBC, which has been branded a mouthpiece for the liberal Democratic point of view. CNN is viewed as a little more toward the center, but conservatives, led by the president himself, tend to lump it in with MSNBC, The Washington Post and The New York Times under the undeserved umbrella of what he calls “fake news.”

Around the turn of the 20th century, it was common for local newspapers to be aligned with one political party or the other. In some communities there were competing dailies — one Republican and the other Democrat. They savaged each other in print nearly every day, accusing each other of blatant party bias and unfairness.

Today, most news organizations, including Fox News and MSNBC, portray themselves as fair, accurate and balanced, even if the public does not.

A century ago, our journalistic predecessors rarely made the distinction between news and editorial comment. A writer thought nothing of expressing his or her opinion, sometimes in the most outlandish graphic, racist or ethnic of terms, in what was ostensibly a news story.

As a journalist coming into the business 60 years ago, I was admonished to keep myself and my views out of news stories. Until recently, political partisanship had come to be regarded as an unethical journalistic practice. News columns were expected to be ideologically neutral.

Editorial pages in many instances are now driven by politically independent inquiry rather than partisan loyalties. There are some major newspapers which have forgone editorializing on critical local issues, preferring instead to be a clearinghouse for comments from readers on these matters. They have also stopped endorsing political candidates, a step mostly applauded by readers and critics.

Several factors have brought this about. The movement for efficient and nonpartisan government bureaucracies was led by newspapers early in the 20th century. What seemed good for government — professionals replacing political hacks — came to be seen as a positive step in reducing corruption and malfeasance in office.

Another factor was the rise of local newspaper monopolies that served readers of all parties and factions. When newspapers merged, or when one bought out the other, the survivor found it both “socially responsible” and good business to be more neutral in news articles but still have a sharp edge in opinion pieces.

The question rages today in journalism: Should the press be an active participant in the news or a conduit through which information passes?

Some news organizations play a role in helping to set the community’s agenda, then vigorously campaign to implement change. Purists rail at this notion, insisting that these news organizations are crossing the line and becoming part of the news.

Fox and MSNBC both have pushed back on the charge that they have become part of the story. For example, Fox news executive Bill Sammons once sent a memo to staffers, which said in part: “… as journalists, we must always be careful to cover the story without becoming part of the story. At news events, we’re supposed to function as dispassionate observers, not active participants. We are there to chronicle the news, not create it. We do not cheerlead for one cause or another.”

William Randolph Hearst, the press baron with whom we associate the phrase “yellow journalism,” and on whose life the motion picture classic “Citizen Kane” is loosely based, bought the New York Journal and adopted as his motto: “While others talk, the Journal acts.”

My pet peeve is that the president and his supporters tend to lump most journalists into the same mindset. The same is true with ultra-liberals who feel the media are not giving them a fair shake.

The majority of newspapers in this country are small and community-oriented and take pride in their professional approach to serving the public.

The public also has difficulty separating a Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Chris Matthews, whose mission is to stoke controversy, with a staff writer for the local paper whose mission is to provide his or her readers with an unvarnished report of a community happening. The difference in their objectives is like night and day.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com