As a journalist, I'd like to see a change in journals. I'm just not hot enough to work for one.

It seems logical that staffers for prestigious academic journals and trade journals would have one goal -- getting published. However, most on the staff of these publications spend most of their time critiquing and publishing the work of others rather than actually writing.

Meanwhile, those fueled by a desire to be published know that quality journalism plays second fiddle to: unique, one-of-a-kind topics that have little or no prior coverage and/or narrowly-tailored subject matter that has a very small audience.

Yet, readers subscribe to journals. Journals, especially medical and financial, maintain their prestige. The general population, however, would struggle to find information of personal significance in a journal.

So, it seems journal articles and print or broadcast coverage of an event differ greatly. One might argue that journalists have specific topics they cover or sections of the paper they write. So, this might force them to find either a new topic or to tailor their writing to a specific audience. But, no matter what section of the paper or segment of a news broadcast one finds coverage, it should always be fair and balanced. (If you read the paper or watch the news and find yourself agreeing with something, it had better be a column or a editorial piece.)

However, a vital difference exists, between journals and other media outlets, that is evident in the final product. Since a journal usually has more time to provide depth and detailed research of a topic it is expected that more aspects of the subject will receive coverage. What I find disturbing, though, is the underlying stance that many journal articles take. It could come from the climate of the publication (heavy-handed, conservative editing or a liberal, politically-correct publisher's refusal to print information contrary to popular belief). Or the passion the writer often has in the subject matter may cause the coverage to take on a subtle opinion. Whatever the reason, I have yet to read a journal article that did not take a position; like a medical journal article that dismisses holistic alternatives for treatment of an ailment or a trade journal article that downplayed the need for consumer protections in coverage of a new high-dollar-trend.

I recognize the importance of taking a stand and finding ways to support that stand. Still, I find the public's right to make an educated decision free of my slant (or any slant for that matter) more important. Journals often have the time, manpower and prestige to give readers a depth of information, background and context that other media outlets cannot afford to offer.

So, I ask myself, "Why don't journals use their power to offer readers multiple angles without an angle?" Then I remembered, those that work for a journal rarely get published. Those that get published, often have to conform to do so.

On the bright side, journals do introduce readers to unique ideas, the latest research or buzz on a topic, and support of an argument. Still, journals lack the unbiased, dual-sided coverage that good journalism (especially civic journalism) provides. Am I the only one that finds this ironic?