What's wrong with the press in America? Well, ask the folks at the Columbia Journalism Review, considered by some the most prestigious media monitor in the country, and they would undoubtedly tell you there are too many right-wing activists in control.

Take the January-February 1999 edition of CJR, for example. It contains a huge hit piece on what it dubs, "The worst newspaper in America."

Anyone want to guess what the worst newspaper in America is? The Daily Oklahoman, which, of course, according to CJR, is a rabid, racist, right-wing, extremist rag with ugly graphics and ad rates that are too high.

That last part reminds me of the old Catskills' joke: "I hate that restaurant. The food is lousy -- and such small portions!"

In other words, why should a journalism critic care about how high ad rates are in a paper he detests? You would think this would be a blessing. If a newspaper charges more than the market will bear for ads, that newspaper will not be in business very long. Thus, the problem of the worst newspaper in America would be solved the old-fashioned way -- by the free market.

But, you see, this is not the case at all. It turns out the people of Oklahoma are perfectly willing to pay these rates deemed exorbitant by the author -- one Bruce Selcraig, a former U.S. Senate staffer and a writer for Sports Illustrated. What does Selcraig know about ad rates? Well, he knows the Daily Oklahoman is charging higher rates per thousand than the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News. Yet, the formula must be working, as Selcraig also decries the fact that the paper is making profits exceeding 20 percent. Imagine that. The paper must be forcing people to buy ads at gunpoint.

Economics aside, Selcraig's biggest beef is the fact that the Daily Oklahoman is a conservative paper. It really bugs him -- and the entire CJR establishment, which makes a habit of scouring the country in search of journalists who march to the beat of a different drummer. Though they preach "diversity" and "tolerance," they really can't stand it when anyone disagrees with them.

I was a target myself a few years ago when I served as editor-in-chief of the Sacramento Union in California. Here's how it works. Disgruntled employees, usually those who were terminated for cause, are interviewed. Ex-government officials who were run out of office by exposes in the paper are interviewed. Then there are the anonymous sources, which are usually quotes made up out of whole cloth to help make the story read better.

When the dirty work is all done and the story is already sitting in type in the composing room, CJR calls the editor or owner for comments.

When they called me, I said: "Hey, you want a good story? I'll give you a good story. Why don't you let me have my say about the paper right next to your attack piece? That's called balance. Debate is intellectually stimulating. A journalism review should try to get people to think."

Well, they almost bought it.

"I'll tell you what," the CJR editor said, "we'll give you 300 words and let you have your say."

300 words! This column, for those of you who don't count words for a living, is 750. But I was being given 300 words to defend my life, explain the mission of my paper and fend off a vicious attack by the fascist, national government-media complex.

Needless to say, it was a slam-dunk. CJR must have learned from that experience, because it didn't give the Daily Oklahoman editors a chance to fight back.

As pure propaganda, the critique of the Oklahoman is devastating. But when you analyze what it actually says, there's no there there.

For example, the piece directs much of its venom toward Patrick McGuigan who runs the editorial pages. McGuigan is derided for calling "Ed Meese the finest attorney general of his lifetime." Yeah? So what? No doubt McGuigan would be given a pass had he made such a comment about Janet Reno. McGuigan is also taken to task for paying heed to sources such as "the anti-regulation, anti-labor, anti-abortion zealotry" of groups such as the Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, American Family Association, etc.

And that really explains how CJR rates newspapers. Do they toe the politically correct lines? Yes -- Good newspaper. No -- Bad newspaper. That's all you need to know about the professional and ethical standards of the Columbia Journalism Review -- easily the worst journalism review in America.