Over the past week, the actions of a small, Floridan congregation have come to the center of media attention because of a pastor’s sensational desire to burn the Quran. Media attention elevated the pastor beyond the recognition he deserved, even grabbing the attention of the United States Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who called the pastor  and personally asked him to stop.

The fact that the actions of a fringe group became an international story reflects the nature of the times in which we live. A 24-hour news cycle, Internet reporting and news opinion segments have shifted the journalistic landscape. All have developed to meet modern demands for current, quick information.

But as news organizations evolve to meet those goals, they must remember their single most important obligation to the American public: neutrality.

Neutrality is achieved by reporting facts and making judgments about what constitutes news from a standpoint that sets personal opinions aside, considering many different viewpoints while siding with none.

When the story about the Islamic cultural center two blocks from ground zero broke, the phrase, “the mosque at ground zero,” was used overwhelmingly. It conjured an image of a massive, minareted house of worship sitting where the Twin Towers once stood—an image that was false. Nonetheless, it ensured that those stories would be viewed.

Many reporters also abandoned neutrality when covering the Tea Party rallies. Regardless of any individual’s beliefs about the political movement, it is a fact that networks covered the protests unfairly. Coverage suggested that the movement was rife with racism and violence, when instances of either were minimal and not representative of the whole.

Furthermore, the opinion sections of network lineups are becoming inseparable from the news. The two highest-rated cable news outlets, Fox News and MSNBC, have allowed their opinion sections to swell well beyond reasonable size, and the personalities that express their opinions in these timeslots are becoming too involved in the process of reporting.

All of these examples communicate a lack of neutral judgment on the part of news organizations in favor of sensationalism. Individuals may respond strongly when they hear that 50 people plan to burn the Quran, but it is inappropriate for news organizations to create a frenzy.

The tendency towards bias is profit-driven. News organizations must compete to stay afloat, and sensationalized coverage boosts advertising revenue.

Although these trends are understandable, they are not excusable precisely because journalism cannot be properly understood in terms of profit.

As the Fourth Estate and a major influence in shaping opinion, journalism must be held to higher standards than any mere website or television show. Its promise to the American people is to report the facts in an unbiased way. The failure to do so drives people toward personalities like Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann, who they believe will tell them the real story.

Since people cannot experience all the world at once, they rely on other sources to provide them with facts, trusting that they are not being deceived. If these sources fail them, then their opinions are no longer based in reality. Essentially, they are being indoctrinated.

Others have already formed their opinions and are upset by facts that contradict their worldview. It may be easy to avoid any evidence that comes close to questioning our opinions, but it is not right. News organizations that make this possible are only pandering to viewers while sacrificing their long-term credibility.

It is not the duty of the media to pander. Journalism is a public service first and a business second, and short-term profits should never be the criteria for determining its worth.

Every time a news organization willingly succumbs to inaccuracy or injects opinion where fact should be, it fails to understand this principle and, most importantly, it fails in its responsibility to the American people.