Stewart’s comments were aimed, of course, at the 24-hour-a-day behemoths like CNN and Fox News. Given that his opinion is an increasingly common one, it’s worth examining what the source of his dissatisfaction is – and from an editorial perspective, how we at Imprint might avoid making these same mistakes.

One option, as proposed by Quebec’s Culture Minister, Christine St-Pierre, would be to regulate media organizations by establishing a status of “professional journalist.” The aim of such a policy, according to the Quebec government, would be to create a class of journalists beholden to a set of as yet unspecified ethical standards, but who also enjoy greater access to information.

Discussions about the nature of democracy and access to information aside, St-Pierre’s proposal reflects a certain perspective on the nature of the problem of thoughtfulness. Seeking to establish a professional designation for journalists implies that the problem facing journalism today is the abundance of citizen journalists and bloggers.

Given the proliferation of news sources now available in the digital world, it’s easy to be tempted by a policy that might allow us to distinguish between “good” and “bad” information. But when you consider that the administration of such a policy could easily become influenced by the government of the day, the possibility exists that media regulation might result in censorship.

Relying on a government body to help us decide what is and isn’t good news, then, is problematic at best. And if we consider the cross-pollination that has occurred between larger news organizations and blog networks – whether its former blogger James Mirtle’s hiring by The Globe and Mail, or ESPN.com writer turned SB Nation blogger Rob Neyer – it’s clear that one can access “good” information via both mediums. (And that bloggers aren’t the only organization capable of producing “bad” information.)

If the production of good, thoughtful content isn’t the source of frustration, though, who is at fault for all of the crap that news organizations bombard us with every day? As Stewart indicated to Rolling Stone, the culprit might be the editorial authorities at the news media we choose to listen to.

If you’re reading this, I might be breaking a fourth wall of sorts by pointing out that the headlines and images which phrase each article in Imprint aren’t chosen by the writers themselves, but rather our (award-winning) editorial staff. Though print media is certainly different than a 24-hour news TV channel – especially so when the newspaper in question is published on a weekly rather than daily basis –  the points that an editorial staff chooses to emphasize play an important role in influencing what you, the reader, might think about any given topic.

A perfect example of this is the uproar that ensued this week when the Canadian Press reported that the Government of Canada had hired a consulting firm to help them meet targets for trimming government spending over the next four years. The article itself is not inflammatory – it outlines a contract the government awarded to Deloitte Inc. for consulting services – but the headlines chosen by some news outlets are designed to attract attention by emphasizing one aspect of the contract without offering the proper context. The CBC’s headline, for example, is “Feds hire ‘cuts’ consultant at $90,000 a day.”

This headline is not a lie; the contract runs from Aug. 15 to mid-Feb. 2012, and is for a total value of $19.8 million – which works out to roughly $90,000 per day. What makes the headline inflammatory is that if the author had bothered to do some number crunching, they would find that this consulting work, which was expected to save the government $11 billion over the next four years, would result in savings of roughly $7.5 million per day. In fact, even if the government was able to trim a quarter of the amount we’re aiming for, Deloitte’s work would still result in daily savings of $1.9 million only. Otherwise stated: even if Deloitte is only able to accomplish 25 per cent of their goal, what they are paid on a daily basis for six months will still only amount to one-twentieth of the amount that they will save Canadians every day for four years.

The headline that the CBC chose to run, however, ignores all of this and instead encouraged an emotional reaction to a seemingly large sum of money being spent in a seemingly oxymoronic way. Now, $90,000 still is a large sum of money to many people, but it is really nothing more than a drop in the bucket for an organization that spends $219 million every day. And one organization that already spends that much is, of course, the Canadian government.

The point that must be drawn from all of this is that, if a news organization doesn’t take the time to be thoughtful when developing the items that frame a story – the headlines, pictures, and in the CBC’s case,a poll that further encourages an emotional reaction by asking readers where they would spend $90,000 a day – they are directly influencing their audience’s opinions and suggesting a conclusion that reflects a certain bias. In the CBC’s case, this bias might be as simple as opposing any cuts that might affect their own budget.

What repercussion does this have for the editorial staff at Imprint? Well, with much more time between deadlines to think about the implications of our own editorial choices, I would hope that our headlines are more fair and accurate than the sound bite style titles found in some daily news outlets.

And for the most part, I think we accomplish that. There are headlines that contain puns; there are headlines that seek only to inform; and yes, from time to time, there are even some headlines that are designed to provoke a reaction. But even in extreme circumstances, we try to temper our choices such that we do not obscure any important detail. In short, we aim to be thoughtful. That is the very least you should expect from us, and I encourage you to let us know if you think we’ve failed you, our readers, in any way.