At a meeting of newspaper folks last week a university journalism professor cited survey results showing that newspaper reporters and editors rank lower than used-car salesmen when it comes to credibility.

That isn't fair.

To used-car salesmen.

When was the last time you read or heard anything about used-car salesmen that reflected negatively on their honesty or their ethics in general? And when was the last time you had reason to question what you read in a newspaper or heard on radio and television?

News organizations have a way of shooting themselves in the foot. Despite efforts to prevent them, factual errors are reported every day. Recent examples in the Southeast Missourian include misinformation that was provided by a sheriff's deputy and the local Chamber of Commerce. Neither intended to misinform the public, but mistakes happen, and when the newspaper reports erroneous information obtains from reliable and credible sources, the newspaper understandably takes the blame. When the wrong information is put before the public, everyone involved -- the source, the reporter, the editor -- regrets that it happened. Meanwhile, public confidence in the news media continues to slip, if the surveys are halfway correct.

News organizations also injure themselves when they report stories and either deliberately or unintentionally leave out pertinent facts. Here are two recent newspaper examples, both stemming from the effort by Cape Girardeau's Convention and Visitor Bureau to promote radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh:

When the Kansas City Star, the first to report the state tourism grant to the city, published its story, it included the fact that Kansas City also was using $23,000 of taxpayer funds made available for statewide tourism grants. But it left out several other equally costly grants. The total for Kansas City: $93,720 -- 10 times more than Cape Girardea's $9,000 grant. Kansas City will use its money for television, radio and newspaper advertising and to produce a video for tour operators.

When asked about this omission, a Star editor said: "But the only reason we did a story was because of Rush Limbaugh." Sounds a little like editorializing in the news columns, doesn't it?

The Joplin Globe wrote an editorial highly critical of Cape Girardeau's grant, saying the city "waddled up to the tourism tax trough." What the editorial failed to mention was that Joplin's Convention and Visitors Bureau did a little waddling itself, getting a $3,501.87 grant for a party where hometown folks, not tourists, dress up in costumes and take a bus ride. The editorial page editor in Joplin confessed he was unaware his town was a tax-trough waddler. "We just wrote our editorial based on what the Star reported." Isn't this a case of compounded journalistic irresponsibility?

Before you start muttering about the pot calling the kettle black, let me acknowledge that the Missourian sometimes runs stories that would have been more meaningful to readers if more information had been sought. But we make an earnest effort to get as much data as possible. In Kansas City and Joplin, cavalier editors as much as said the facts shouldn't get in the way of a good story or a biting editorial.

I don't recall a used-car salesman ever doing that.

~R. Joe Sullivan is the editor of the Southeast Missourian.