For some readers, fairness in news coverage is a bigger concern than accuracy.

We share that concern, and we understand that allegations of bias threaten our credibility. I often hear from readers who say we should stick to reporting the facts and let readers make their own conclusions.

ANGELA TUCK PUBLIC EDITOR • E-mail Tuck Recent columns: Hip-hop, rap, R&B are a huge part of the ATL scene  Edwards affair was a tough call for mainstream media  Offshore-drilling story was beached by an iffy photo choice  A big metro area, and we'll continue to cover it all  Watchdog reporting central to the AJC's mission

"The problem with journalism today is not grammatical errors or inconsequential boo-boos," wrote AJC reader Tom Gambeski after my column last week on corrections. "The press has taken on the responsibility of trying to correct the ills of society from a left-wing perspective, allowing little tolerance for opposing views, and is particularly antagonistic toward those on the right. The biggest problem journalism faces is the obvious attempt to control the news to suit their particular agendas."

In Gambeski's opinion, the media insult readers who get news from a variety of sources.

"We can see through an attempt to filter, omit, exaggerate and slant news stories for strictly political reasons," he said. "That is not your job. Report the entire story. We will then decide its validity."

Perceptions about bias in news coverage are influenced by a person's own biases. But that doesn't mean we dismiss reader concerns about fairness. Editors and reporters at the AJC have daily discussions about how stories are framed, where they appear in the paper and how photographs are used. But there are times when we miss the mark.

"We've gotten much better. There is more awareness, thanks to readers," said AJC editor Julia Wallace. "Sometimes we get it, sometimes we don't. We're really working on it."

For example, a panel of AJC readers created to give us feedback has tackled the question of bias in recent weeks. We've also created a newsroom committee to look at fairness issues, with an eye toward identifying solutions.

Our Sunday @issue section, which is devoted to analysis and commentary, isn't intended to be a straight news section. But a Feb. 10 @issue cover prompted several readers to raise a legitimate fairness concern. The cover featured a large photograph of Barack Obama surrounded by smiling young people. The story, which took up most of the page, was a legitimate news story about Obama's appeal to young voters. At the bottom of the page was a story about Republican front-runner John McCain's legendary temper.

"I believe both stories were entirely legitimate — timely, well-reported and balanced," said @issue editor Richard Halicks. "But the complaint about their juxtaposition is also entirely legitimate. If I had it to do over, I wouldn't run them on the same page."

Some readers question why the AJC and the national media haven't featured more critical coverage of Obama, who will surely face closer scrutiny since emerging as the front-runner in the Democratic primary.

In recent days, The New York Times has been criticized for its story about McCain's ties to a female lobbyist. It cited anonymous sources, which in my view should never be used to insinuate an affair.

In his Feb. 24 column, Clark Hoyt, the Times' public editor, reached a similar conclusion: "The article had repercussions for both McCain and the Times. He may benefit, at least in the short run, from a conservative backlash against the 'liberal' New York Times. The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and [Vicki] Iseman had a romance."

The AJC decided not to run the Times' original story, but we did run a follow-up story about McCain's reaction to it.

"In addition to the sourcing concerns and the way the affair was nuanced, we didn't think the article was clear as to what the news was," said Harvey Parson, a senior editor in the AJC's print department. "While a close examination of a candidate's working relationship with lobbyists is a story, I thought the affair that may or may not have happened obscured the clarity of that topic in the article."

I think the AJC handled the situation well. Parson's instincts about the original story were right on, but once the allegation and McCain's denial became a story, we had to report it.