Hugh Hewitt had ABC's political director on his show the other day and it was a very interesting interview. (You can find the transcript here. It was a three-hour interview, so it's long.) I read the transcript last night before going to bed and had a few thoughts.

First, it was refreshing to hear Halperin rip Dan Rather and Mary Mapes for their Bush National Guard fraud in the weeks before the 2004 presidential election. Rather richly deserves condemnation, and Halperin is a stand-up guy not to hem and haw in an effort to protect media integrity as a whole by soft-peddling Rathergate.

Second, Halperin said that conservatives have every right to be suspicious of anything and everything the old media (he doesn't like the term mainstream media because he doesn't believe it's mainstream -- kudos on that too) reports because the history of their last 40 years is one of supporting liberalism and unfairness to conservatism.

Third, the following exchange presented Halperin with an interesting problem -- one that he doesn't really acknowledge. (Sorry about the long quote.)

Mark Halperin: Do you want to live in an America where there's media that's just all based on being pro-Bush or anti-Bush?

Hugh Hewitt: No, I want to live in an America where there's a media that I can understand, and understand where they're coming from, so that I can correct for their deep-seated bias, which distorts the news, so that it drives the country in bad directions.

MH: So you reject the model which says that there can be a news organization staffed by people who aren't biased?

HH: Yes, absolutely. I reject that model.

MH: All right. Well…

HH: I've rejected that model forever. I think most of America rejects that model. I think you guys in Manhattan and D.C. have persuaded yourselves that eventually, America will accept you back after shattering your credibility, and it's just never going to happen, because we don't believe you.

MH: I think it's a hugely uphill strike, because everybody's against us. But I believe in, and I think the founders agreed with this, I don't always think that what we should do is what the founders did, but I think we should aspire to have fairness. And I will tell you…

HH: Wait, wait, wait. Time out. You know, now you're on my turf. Have you read the Hamilton biography about fairness? I mean, these guys did not believe in fairness. They believed in saying what they believed, and going at each other with pitchforks and clubs. And Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other, and you knew what they thought, and they brought their opinions candidly to every conversation.

MH: They wanted a free press that could influence reasoned debate.

HH: Yeah, but everyone knew what everyone believed, so if, in fact, it's the letter from a Westchester farmer and Hamilton fires back in the course of…inciting revolution in Manhattan, everybody knows what people believe.

MH: Hugh, let me go back to the modern age, because I can't compete…

HH: Yeah, you want to run away from the framers in a hurry.

MH: Exactly. But let me say this. If you want…I think the country should have strong news organizations that are fair. I agree, given the way the left, and particular the right feels about us, that it's real uphill. But that's what I believe America should aspire to. If, though, you want to in a casual introduction, lump me in with people in my business who are liberally biased and don't seem to care about it, I think that's doing your listeners a disservice. They should read the book and what we say in The Way To Win about how the media's been liberally biased in presidential campaign coverage, what needs to be done to try to fix it, and why the current system may not be any better with new media. But to lump me in with everybody else, I think, is doing people a disservice, because most of my colleagues, as you know, are in denial about it, or blind to it.

HH: Well, actually, I've had Thomas Edsall on this program. I've had Peter Beinart on this program. I've had…

MH: I didn't say everybody…

HH: …Joel Stein on this program. I've gotten all sorts of people on here, and nine out of ten refuse to be candid. And in that regard, I think it is the defining quality of modern elite media, is that they don't trust their audiences, that you have to play…

MH: I trust my audience to look at the quality of my work, rather than knowing what political beliefs I might have.

HH: Well, let me digress, because this always gets to this point. If you have reporters, are they allowed to report on business in which they have an investment?

MH: No.

HH: Of course not. No one is allowed to do that. I think almost every political reporter has an emotional investment, or an ideological investment in the way that politics turns out, and more often than not.

MH: They shouldn't.

HH: They shouldn't, but they do.

MH: That's what I'm trying to fix.

HH: But you're not fixing it by not telling us what you think. If everyone in your newsroom…

MH: I work very hard to take whatever beliefs I have, and bend over backwards to make sure that no one is treated unfairly by coverage that I impact.

HH: Mark, if you're all left-handed, you're not going to be able to hit from the right side of the plate, all right? If you're all left-handed, you're not going to be able to cover pro-life politics the right way. If you're all atheists, you're not going to be able to understand…

MH: That's why we need to have the newsroom not filled with people who are all atheists, or anti-2nd Amendment.

HH: But if we can't figure that out, how in the world…

MH: We have to work on it, Hugh. We can't give up. We have to work on it.

HH: But how do we know you're working on it when you won't answer the questions?

MH: Because I'm telling you that my views, to the extent I have them, and I'm very good at pressing them out of my brain, do not impact my attempt to be fair to everyone I cover.

HH: But Mark, was Mary Mapes fair?

MH: No.

HH: Okay. There are more Mary Mapes. Even if we believe for a second…

MH: Hugh, Hugh, Hugh. Stop going back…

HH: …and there's no reason to believe you…

MH: Stop going back to the stuff we agree on, because we can talk less about the book if you do that. I agree with you that the Mary Mapes' of the world are ruining it for the rest of us, and they are the dominant majority. We've got to fix it.

HH: I know that, but what I'm saying is, until and unless you begin to answer, and newsroom people begin to answer questions…

MH: No, Hugh, that's not the paradigm that I'm going for. You and I disagree about this. The paradigm for me is not for everybody to have left wing or right wing bias, announce them, and then cover news that way. That's not to me the way the country will be great and well served by news and information.

HH: Mark, have you…

MH: That's what you think. That's not what I think.

HH: Let me ask you. Have you been to Church or Synagogue in the last month?

MH: Again, it's the same as asking me if I own a gun, or if I've ever had an abortion.

HH: Well, I know about the latter one. But my point of view is, that if there's no one in ABC News who attends Church…

MH: I agree with your point of view on that, Hugh.

HH: Okay. So how do we ever figure out when to start trusting you again?

MH: By judging us based…if we can every produce a product that isn't bias, you'll know. [emphasis added]

I'm not sure we can ever look at any media report and say that it's completely unbiased -- and the fact that both the left and right say something is biased doesn't have the effect of proving that it's unbiased.

Focus on the few lines up there that I italicized. One method of trying to correct the mainstream media's bias -- a bias that Halperin acknowledges exists -- is to populate the newsroom with more conservatives.

"That's why we need to have the newsroom not filled with people who are all atheists, or anti-2nd Amendment," Halperin says. '

But at the same time, Halperin refuses to reveal his own biases. We don't know if Halperin is an atheist. Or if he's anti-2nd Amendment. Or if he's pro-life or pro-choice. Throughout the interview, Halperin repeatedly refuses to tell the public where he's coming from, insisting that it's irrelevant and he should be judged on the quality of his reporting. This facade of the unbiased, objective reporter is what the standard should be, according to Halperin.

So, how does Halperin create the newsroom "not filled with people who are all atheists, or anti-2nd Amendment" if potential employees are barred from revealing their biases? Or are they only prohibited from telling the public and not Halperin himself?

If your goal is an ethnically diverse newsroom, how can you accomplish that if you refuse to consider the color of people's skin? If your goal is a more politically diverse newsroom, how can you accomplish that if asking your reporters and producers what their political views are is forbidden?

I give Halperin credit for his honesty. However, I don't know how he can accomplish his goals of returning credibility to the old media with conservatives if he isn't doing anything to hire more of them to balance the reporting coming out of his unit.

A newsroom full of liberals can consciously try to lean right in order to achieve that mythical middle ground of objectivity, but they're not going to be able to do it as well as a newsroom where there are people on the right and the left trying to lean toward the center.

Mark Halperin: Hire more conservatives.