When The New York Times recently announced its acquisition of full control of the International Herald Tribune (IHT), its ousted partners - namely, the editorial staff of The Washington Post - published a statement that I believe sheds a different light on a recent speech given to the SAIS community by the IHT's Executive Editor, Mr. David Ignatius.

In a tersely written two-page statement dated October 22nd, Donald Graham, the Washington Post's publisher, explained with great "reluctance" and "sadness", that he had been strong-armed into dissolving the Post's decades-long partnership with the New York Times. The Times, it seems, had decided that the time had come to advance its "international goals," at any price. Despite the pleas of its partners, the Times refused to inject new funds into the struggling IHT, even threatening to publish its own, separate, branded New York Times international edition in an effort to undermine the partnership further. Faced with no alternative, the Washington Post stated it was "not possible to remain in a partnership with an unwilling partner," and sold its stake.

At the time, Mr. Ignatius was quoted as saying that he hoped the IHT would maintain its international character under its new management. He also said that the New York Times' IHT, "if it's to be heard and have the sort of strength it wants, can't be simply an American voice."

Now, why would Mr. Ignatius be concerned about the IHT retaining its "international character" if, as he claimed during his SAIS speech, all American newspapers - the IHT included - already report the news without bias? What's the difference between having an "international character" and an "American voice"? Put another way, why would the IHT's reporting style change just because one U.S. partner dropped out and another took charge? And - just to drive the point home - why isn't Mr. Ignatius sure if he'll stick with the IHT after the ownership is transferred to the Times?

The truth is that even American papers are biased, and that includes Mr. Ignatius' beloved IHT and its new full-time owner, the New York Times. Mr. Ignatius' tenure at the IHT won't end because he's not in charge (he remains Executive Editor, for now) - it will end because he doesn't want to espouse the New York Times' editorial line. (Mr. Ignatius originally came to the IHT from the Washington Post.)

Many journalists, like Mr. Ignatius, like to believe that their profession has a higher morality guiding it: namely, an unbiased, balanced presentation of the news. That's a nice thought, but it's simply impossible to achieve in practice. Newspapers have to sell copy to keep their editors and journalists employed. That means targeting a certain readership, selecting news that interests that readership, and spinning such news in a way that keeps those readers subscribing.

Mr. Ignatius himself acknowledged that some journalistic discretion - otherwise known as "spin" - has to be exercised, even at the IHT. He pointed to the fact that his paper doesn't publish photographs, for example, of dead bodies on page one. (It publishes them on page two.) This doesn't mean that the IHT is somehow exercising better moral judgment than its competition. It means that Mr. Ignatius is trying to sell newspapers to a readership that doesn't mind seeing disturbing photographs on page two. If they did, would they appear in Mr. Ignatius' paper? Unlikely, at best.

In his speech at SAIS, Mr. Ignatius categorized newspapers into "anarchic", "ideological", and "nationalistic" types, which he linked American, European, and Asian publications, respectively. This typology also rings false. It's true that journalism styles vary from country to country, but surely it's too simplistic to sweep thousands of newspapers into three categories. (An alternative grouping - inspired by Mr. Ignatius' admiration of a Chinese newspaper that's "breaking the rules" - might be "censored" and "uncensored". Or maybe it's inappropriate to invent a grand typology: maybe newspapers are just businesses, providing a service for which people pay.)

Another one of Mr. Ignatius' whipping boys - aside from personal slams on the editorial boards of such well-respected publications as Le Monde and The Economist - was the proliferation of so-called "news pundits" who offer a opinionated view of the day's news events. This service, in Mr. Ignatius' opinion, isn't worthwhile. I disagree. Thanks to globalization, readers have access to news servers, magazines, newspapers, radio, television, and other sources of information from all over the world. Don't we need more quality analysis that sifts through this proliferation of news and tells us what's important? The Financial Times, for one, sure thinks so - it recently installed a third Comment and Analysis page, amid much fanfare. The editor-in-chief of the paper is banking on the page's success to attract more readers. And well it should.

Mr. Ignatius' speech at SAIS was, if anything, bizarre in light of the recent events at the IHT and his comments surrounding those events. Perhaps the next time he comes to SAIS, he'll be true to his American voice and deliver a less biased and better-reasoned speech.