Objectivity is abnormal. It goes against all natural human proclivities to observe, organize, conclude and choose sides.

Yet journalists hold up the concept as holy writ. For a newspaper that is trying to reach as broad an audience as possible, objectivity is a worthy and laudable goal.

But I'll be the first to concede it is one we do not always achieve.

Our language is so full of nuance and subtle connotations that even the most strict reporters and editors cannot always strip away every point of view and political orientation.

Take as Exhibit A the Los Angeles Times story the Review-Journal published a week ago today. The topic was one of major interest to most readers: A presidential commission on tax reform was debating limits on mortgage-interest deductions homeowners may claim against their income tax each year.

The article was chock full of facts and figures, fairly laying out the pros and cons. But one sentence leaped from the page. The choice of one verb rang loudly.

The story stated: "In a new study, the Government Accountability Office calculated that the exemption drained $29.7 billion from federal coffers last year."

How can not sending money into the gaping maw that is Washington constitute a draining of money? The point of view necessary to use such a verb is that all wealth rightly resides in some communal pot to be doled out as seen fit for the commonweal.

It is that frame of mind that has given us our manipulative tax structure. You may spend your own money if it is for good things like home purchases or charitable giving or education. You must pay punitive taxes if you purchase bad things like liquor and tobacco.

So consider this one of my periodic lectures on how to read a newspaper with a skeptical and discerning eye.

-- Speaking of lectures, I had a call recently from an aide to Sen. Harry Reid angrily criticizing the Review-Journal for running, if I recall the numbers correctly, three editorials critical of the senator and 13 letters to the editor chiding Reid, while not publishing a single letter to the editor praising him. She threatened various recriminations for our sins and omissions.

I explained that we thought the senator was wrong and that we generally run letters to the editor in proportion to those we receive. Also, I could not recall seeing a single letter praising Sen. Reid. Frankly, people are generally more motivated to write when they have a gripe than a compliment.

She assured me the paper had been sent such letters.

I'm pleased to report that subsequently we have in fact received several letters singing the praises of Sen. Reid.

A letter from Juan M. Paulino read: "Senator Reid continues to make Nevada proud. Even now as the nation's top Democrat, Senator Reid never forgets about his home state and his home town.

"Republicans are already trying to chip away at the Senator's support, but they're failing. The truth is Nevadans love our senior senator because he gets the job done "

In eight other spontaneous, heart-felt and effusive outpourings Sheree Foster, Rita McGary, Kelly Contreras, Patricia Thomas, Joseph Kosuda, Bette (no last name), Lorraine J. Lazier and Lea Dalio had similar observations. Well, actually they all wrote exactly the same thing, including typos. None provided the prerequisite phone number and address.

Isn't it heartening to know our elected officials are so uniformly appreciated by their free-thinking constituents?

-- Speaking of uniformity, we are entering the third week of the amended Joint Operating Agreement between the Review-Journal and the rival Sun, in which both are delivered in the mornings. How do you think it is going?

So far we've seen the Greenspun family interests duly served with cover stories on Yucca Mountain, pet adoption and the family businesses.

On the pages that are clearly labeled as opinion and commentary, the content has been uniformly what the Sun has always provided -- a balanced diet of left, liberal and quasi-socialist.

Some readers have suggested the Review-Journal counter-balance this by loading up on conservative columns. Sorry, we will continue to edit this paper for all our readers, giving conservative and logical views with our editorials and a mix of opinions on op-ed.

Thomas Mitchell is editor of the Review-Journal. He writes about the role of the press and free speech. His phone number is 383-0261 and e-mail is tmitchell@reviewjournal.com.