Every now and then, a ranting person comes along and argues that journalists, charged with remaining as objective as possible as they report the news, should disclose their political leanings. Today, it's James Poniewozik, writing in Time; he voted for Barack Obama. So goes the argument: Financial reporters disclose which stocks they own. Tech writers make known their preferences between Macs and PCs. So why don't political reporters tell you if they're more an Obama, Clinton, or McCain type?

"The reasons not to say whom you're voting for boil down mainly to the interests of journalists, not those of readers and viewers," argues Poniewozik. "It would be a pain in the neck. Campaign sources would mistrust you. Radio hosts and bloggers would have a field day. Readers would become suspicious."

It all, supposedly, perpetuates of a myth of neutrality that doesn't actually exist. But if a newspaper reporter discloses his political persuasions, and his cadre of sources evaporates, what good is he to readers?

Moreso, if a reporter, next to his byline, has his affiliations made public, won't even the most unbiased of articles be subject to unwarranted criticism? Or is that an option every publication should afford readers, who would get to make their own decisions about which journos to trust?

There seems a much more obvious solution here: Conservatives? Don't trust MSNBC or the New York Times. Liberals? Don't trust Fox News or the Daily Oklahoman.