One of the most depressing aspects of modern journalism is the perversion of the idea of "balance." This even shows up in opinion columns, which is rather weird. According to this theory of balance, if one side has done something bad, then the other side must have as well, and the writer has to make mention of that.

Leaving aside the fact that one side may, in the course of events, have more bad actors than the other, this is still a pretty silly idea of balance. A prime example of this was in last Saturday's Telegraph editorial page in a column by TV host and writer Bonnie Erbe.

She was talking about some of the tarnished female officeholders in the current administration. She pointed to the case of Consumer Product Safety Commission Acting Chairwoman Nancy Nord. Though she's in charge of the agency that is supposed to see that such things as imported toys are safe, she has opposed a Congressional initiative to increase her agency's budget and tighten standards. In addition, she has accepted some $60,000 in travel and accommodations from the very toy industry that her agency is supposed to regulate. Erbe also mentions General Services Administration Administrator Laurita Doan, who has been investigated on charges of engaging in partisan political activity while on official time, which is prohibited by the Hatch Act.

All well and good, except that Erbe has to add: "And to be bipartisan about this, we all know Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was tinged by scandal during her time as first lady in the White House via associations with the Whitewater and 'travelgate' scandals."Whitewater was a scandal? Maybe if "scandal" means "much airtime and ink in the mainstream media over something that amounted nothing." It helps to recall that after six years of investigating costing, by conservative estimates, $60 million, the end result of the "Whitewater scandal" was: Zip, Zilch, Nada. No one was charged in connection with Whitewater. Nothing. Is that a scandal or is it a partisan witch hunt? It is true that some people were indicted for things that were discovered along the way, but neither Clinton was ever charged with anything.

"Travelgate" revolved around charges that the Clintons had fired people in the White House Travel Office so they could install their own people and steer business to their friends. But, in 1998 Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr exonerated President Bill Clinton of any involvement in the matter. In 2000 Independent Counsel Robert Ray issued his final report on Travelgate, stating that Hillary Clinton had made factually false statements but saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute her. That's pretty weak. What would you expect a special prosecutor to say after spending years and millions investigating? If Ray had any hope of proving that Hillary Clinton had made "factually false" statements under oath, don't you think he would have tried to indict her for perjury?   

But despite that, Ms. Erbe felt compelled to throw some undeserved mud Hillary Clinton's way, just "to be bipartisan." She wasn't bipartisan, she was just living up to this silly idea of balance. It's a disservice to the readers and it is not good journalism.