There is a lot of subjectivity to the objectivity of "Big J" journalism.

For example, I watched Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin last night (more tonight) and did not regard Palin's declaration, "I'm ready" (meaning to be vice president a heartbeat away . . .), was the big, central, key takeaway news nugget of the night. Silly me, I took her brave assertion that she can do the job (I'm not sure what she thinks the job is) as nothing different than a hoary "Ready to Lead!" campaign ad every candidate runs.

Seriously folks, is there anyone running out there who thinks they're "not ready?"

Obviously I'm not a "Big J" journalism icon because both The New York Times (front page, below the fold) and the Star Tribune (running the same Times story much larger and above the fold), thought otherwise. Above anything else Palin said, her assertion that, "I'm ready" was what each paper deemed headline newsworthy. Really?

(The Strib website links to an AP story on the interview, not the Times story it ran in the dead tree edition.)

Now, there's plenty of blog fodder in the Star Tribune playing provincial translator tower for The New York Times. This morning's Palin story, written by Times veteran Jim Rutenberg . . . who watched on TV like everyone else . . . required no rarefied access or high-level of sourcing. There is no reason why the Strib couldn't have assigned one of its own reporters to produce a story of their own for this morning's paper. But in the parlance of our bare-boned times, this Palin business doesn't meet the "local, local" criteria vital to the survival of local newspapers. (I mean, you don't hear anyone talking about Palin around the Twin Cities, do you?)

In my blogging-in-pajamas-in-parents'-basement view, I tend to define "news" in terms of information that is "new," revelatory, and to some extent unprecedented. There are other criteria, but those will do.

In that context, Palin clearly having no idea what "The Bush Doctrine" is or what it means—you know, that boring pointless stuff about believing we have a right to attack anyone we think might be thinking of attacking us some time in the future—was far more "newsy" than her insisting, "I'm ready." Or, if not the Bush Doctrine business, maybe the conflation of fighting in Iraq to defeat those who attacked us on 9/11 (something even Bush has stopped trying to sell) or that heavily practiced mantra about not "second-guessing" Israel [the evangelical from nowhere must reassure the Israel lobby]. All or any of those struck me as grist for a more valid and relevant next-day headline than "I'm ready."

Further proof of liberal media bias, obviously.

In fairness to The New York Times, its editors did managed to squeeze the two following paragraphs on to its front page. Referring to her declaration of "readiness":

"It was perhaps the most confident answer she supplied in a sometimes tense and generally probing interview with Mr. Gibson. It was her first session with a major news organization since she joined Mr. McCain’s Republican ticket two weeks ago and was immediately transformed from an obscure, first-term governor to a national political star.

"At times visibly nervous, at others appearing to hew so closely to prepared answers that she used the exact same phrases repeatedly, Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of “anticipatory self-defense.”

The Star Tribune rearranged those, um, pertinent, relevant observations by Rutenberg off page one to page thirteen.

The Strib's "edit" of The Times's story also deleted these two graphs:

"Ms. Palin came into the interview with heavy preparation from Mr. McCain’s top political and policy advisers, many of whom accompanied her home to Alaska, where Mr. Gibson will be holding a series of question-and-answer sessions with her through Friday afternoon.

"The McCain campaign has kept Ms. Palin away from reporters and off the interview circuit traditionally traveled by vice-presidential nominees, but was under pressure to place her before a nationally recognized journalist. There were conflicting signals from the campaign about whether it would consider Mr. Gibson’s interview session the first of many or one of the few."

The Strib did, however, repeat on its front page . . . above the fold ..  . in bigger type . . . her assertion that "I'm ready."  Did you all see that?

Somewhere it would be . . . legitimate, relevant, and appropriate . . . for a "Big J" news organization to consider publishing a perspective along the lines of, say, author James Fallows, who I suspect knows a lot more about China and Russia beyond the fact that "you can see Russia from Alaska, you know."

Writing on his blog for Atlantic magazine this morning, Fallows says . . .

"Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don't. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we're able to talk and think about it in a "rounded" way.

"Here's the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio.

"Mention a name or theme -- Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong's comeback, Venus and Serena -- and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.

"People who don't like sports can't do that. It's not so much that they can't identify the names -- they've heard of Armstrong -- but they've never bothered to follow the flow of debate. I like sports -- and politics and tech and other topics -- so I like joining these debates. On a wide range of other topics -- fashion, antique furniture,  (gasp) the world of restaurants and fine dining, or (gasp^2) opera -- I have not been interested enough to learn anything I can add to the discussion.  So I embarrass myself if I have to express a view.

"What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years."

"Big J" newspapering regards that sort of thing as subjective editorializing, which it is. But what do you call the choice of, "I'm ready" as the headline essence of last night's interview if not "subjective?"

The takeaway from this rant is that with its choice of "news" in the first interview with this indisputably unique candidate for vice president . . . (of the United States, not the Wasilla school board) . . . The Times, followed by the Strib, made the decision to draw an editorial circle around a politician's entirely predictable, routine assertion of competence rather than risk the appearance of subjectivity with a headline distilling what was legitimately newsworthy about the interview.

To put a finer point on it, if either Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain had gone deer-in-the-headlights over a definition of The Bush Doctrine, would either newspaper have run a headline the next morning ignoring that startling nugget of news in favor of something that blandly echoed the candidate's belief that they are "ready," evidence to the contrary?

Let's call a pig a pig here. It's a double standard. And like so much other timidity and anxious calculation, it doesn't speak well for what's left of "The Big J."