We used to think of the British and European press as far more politicized than ours; after all, their newspapers freely chose up sides and when you picked up a Tory paper such as The Telegraph, a center-right paper like The Times, a center-left paper like The Independent, and a leftist paper like the Guardian, you pretty much knew what you were getting.

American newspapers, on the other hand, were “neutral” and “objective,” like The New York Times and the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francsico Chronicle.

Right.

So how to explain this minor paddling of the “objective” American media by the equally “objective” Columbia Journalism Review:

A couple of America’s leading media outlets finally dug into the recent controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last week. The Observatory first criticized U.S. news outlets two weeks ago for not paying more attention to the issue.

Last Tuesday, The New York Times ran a front-page article by Elisabeth Rosenthal under the headline, “U.N. Panel and Its Chief Face a Siege on Their Credibility.” On Wednesday, the Associated Press ran one over the wire headlined, “Scientists seek better way to do climate report.” The difference between the two headlines–the Times focused on the panel’s faults, the AP on its attempts to address them–is important. Each tells half the story, but it is the latter that should lead.

Well, sure it should if, like the American beachhead of the Frankfurt School — Columbia University — you’re committed to “critical theory,” “social research” and pretty much the destruction of the American Way of Life. In that case “climate change” is your best friend. After all:

… the story here is not the fact that the IPCC and climate scientists have made mistakes. From the batch of e-mails taken from the University of East Anglia in November to more recent allegations of errors and poor sourcing in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, these mistakes have done little to undermine the fundamental theory that human industry is contributing to global warming, or prove that the field of climate science is riddled with corruption. The story, properly told, is about whether or not the responsible parties are responding appropriately to flaws in the system (correcting the record where necessary and working to prevent the recurrence of past mistakes).

So… how do you like your American “objectivity” now? Your thoughts welcome.