While some people working at either network will deny it, I think most rational viewers are comfortable with the statement that both the Fox News Channel and MSNBC lean towards opposing sides of the political spectrum. Yes, there are a number of more traditional NBC News journalists working at MSNBC, but the channel's primetime opinion-heavy liberal-leaning programming continues to seep into the rest of the day's news mix. And as for Fox News....well, yes, there are some good independent journalists there. But at this juncture, it's a bit silly to pretend that the overall programming of the network doesn't skew to the right side of the political spectrum.

And in my view, there's nothing wrong with that. Back in 2003, I was arguing that MSNBC needed to move left to find an audience, and I don't have a problem with Fox's role as the voice of conservative America. But I also recognize that the problem with staking a claim on one side or the other is that the natural inclination is to drinking the Kool-Aid of the side you agree with. It's human nature and it's one of the reasons that news journalists often argue the only way to approach news coverage is to try and remain unbiased. Because picking a side and remaining rational about your side's faults is nearly impossible to accomplish.

Or to think of it another way, your family may be ugly and you might make fun of Uncle Bob's bulbous nose. But once anyone else does it, the gloves come off. And it's no different in politics or cable news.

Newspapers have dealt with this issue in the past by hiring an in-house ombudsman. Someone who is tasked with listening to criticism of the coverage, talking to the people responsible, and getting an explanation that may or may not be satisfactory to the readers. While it's not a perfect system, it's a way for readers to have some input in the editorial process and it provides another way of slowing down the inevitable jump on the talking point of the day.

Having someone who is hired strictly to provide another level of checks-and-balances in the system is not only helpful for viewers but it would strengthen the news coverage of the network itself. Knowing that there is someone there who will call you out when you're being an idiot can free both journalist and opinionmakers to do their best work. Everyone needs an editor sometimes. Even a cable TV star.

But while I think that a newly-created ombudsperson position makes a lot of sense, it will only work if the person is given a wide range of autonomy and the ability to take on the stars of the network. Not in an unfair way, but if someone on Fox News or MSNBC accidentally misstates a fact (or just makes up a tidbit because it sounds logical), this ombudsman needs the respect of the talent and the support of the management.

They also need a regular spot on their respective network. They need to be on the air daily, most likely in the early daytime hours. A short several-minute segment should do it, but they need the time to say "here's the clip, here's the complaint, this is what I've uncovered." And the reality is that in many cases, they may find the network talent to be correct. Every viewer complaint isn't valid and every call for a correction isn't logical. But no matter what the ultimate finding, the viewers need to trust the results and the autonomy of the ombudsman.

Perhaps surprisingly, I don't think that Fox News should hire a liberal for the position or MSNBC a die-hard conservative. If someone takes the job with the thought that they're "going to expose those lying bastards," then the ombudsman becomes nothing more than another analyst with an axe to grind. A centrist would work best, ideally someone who isn't a political geek but who has some journalism chops and the ability to grasp the importance of random facts and comments.

This suggestion isn't driven by any hatred of either network. In fact, I flip between the various cable news and business channels all day. But it's easy to lose perspective and whether it's a question about coverage or why a particular guest is labeled a certain way, it's better to have these issues answered officially than to let them fester out there in the partisan blogosphere.

While I've focused on Fox News and MSNBC in this piece, it's not difficult to make an argument that CNN, CNBC or the Fox Business Network could use ombudsmen of their own. But the problems at those networks tend to be driven more by flaws in their reporting than by partisan issues.

Do I expect either network to seriously consider the idea? Honestly, I don't think they will. But in a world where the White House runs a 24/7 desk designed to quickly answer criticism, it's only a matter of time before news organizations have to follow suit.

Have a comment? Email me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it