One of the biggest threats to the news industry is the constant drumbeat from some members of the public that journalists are biased and therefore can't be trusted.

My colleagues and I field charges of bias in story placement and coverage on a wide range of topics. Often, complaints center on issues people have a strong point of view on — coverage of Republicans vs. Democrats; of black politicians vs. white ones; crime coverage; the war in Iraq; the long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

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

Readers often take note of the differences in coverage they find on TV news, Web sites and newspapers and magazines. Everyone is watching the watchdogs — and that's not a bad thing. Freedom of the press, one of democracy's hallmarks, comes with a responsibility to present accurate and balanced coverage.

When readers believe we haven't addressed a topic in a balanced manner, we give them a fair hearing. Facilitating that process is part of my job as AJC public editor. For many readers, what we don't cover, or the volume of coverage we give certain issues, shows bias. Several readers have commented that if the "Barbie Bandits" had been black women, for instance, their case would not have gotten the attention it did. This is a sentiment I happen to agree with.

National and international news doesn't get the same kind of attention as local news in these pages because the AJC's mission is to deliver strong local content about the metro area, information that our staff is uniquely qualified to deliver in print and online.

Last month, I invited members of the newspaper's online feedback group to share their thoughts about bias. The group is made up of readers who give AJC editors feedback on a host of issues, but concerns about bias come up frequently.

Michael McMunn talked about last year's death penalty series, which he felt was anti-death penalty. McMunn said one of the people quoted in the series, attorney Stephen Bright, is an opponent of the death penalty who is often quoted in the AJC. For the series, reporters examined 1,315 murder convictions eligible for the death penalty from 1995 to 2004 and found that similar cases resulted in starkly different sentences. A number of prosecutors and defense attorneys were interviewed.

After the series ran, McMunn noted, the editorial board weighed in with its belief that the death penalty doesn't work, making for a one-two punch. Readers, he said, often don't make a distinction between news articles and editorials.

McMunn also urged the news staff to watch its adjectives. An article about a ban on guns in Washington, D.C., noted that shootings were "skyrocketing." "The actual increase in shootings was 4.9 percent, and the rates were flat or lower in previous years," said McMunn.

Barbara Latimer sent her comments via e-mail. She doesn't consider the AJC to be biased, but "you can sometimes spot a slip-up."

A story about former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell getting early release to take part in an addiction program implied that he was using the program for his own personal gain. "While it was OK to report the aforementioned facts, the story should have included some frame of reference for the reader regarding other similarly convicted white-collar criminals' use of the same loophole. Then you are not just 'outing' Bill Campbell and overlooking the others," said Latimer.

Clive F. Jacks of Stone Mountain talked about the need for reporters to stick to the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. He is biased, he said, for the truth.

Readers should know this isn't an issue we take lightly. Staffers are reminded of the need for balance in news coverage, as well as how stories are framed. A newsroom committee is studying ways we can be more transparent in our reporting, so readers can judge for themselves the sources of information as well as the expertise and backgrounds of sources. Better labeling and a detailed description about how stories are conceived and reported will give readers a clearer understanding of our process. The more transparent our work is, the better it will be received.