Is the PA Times Fair and Balanced, or Has It Drifted Left?

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Charles Mason
November 7, 2025

When I read Michael R. Ford’s piece, I immediately thought of the PA Times’ stated guidelines. They promise to be fair, nonpartisan and focused on public administration, not politics. Yet when I examine Ford’s article, the tone and framing lean heavily into political judgment rather than neutral administrative analysis. I am not saying that Ford’s concerns about democratic norms are invalid, but the way he delivers them suggests a deep mistrust of one side of the political spectrum.

The Appearance of Balance vs. the Reality of Bias

The PA Times claims it “covers without bias or favor,” but this article reads like an editorial dressed in academic concern. It paints one party as the primary source of dysfunction, using examples that point to conservative or right-leaning figures while avoiding any acknowledgment that the same type of politicization has come from the left. That imbalance matters. If the platform truly seeks nonpartisanship, then it should apply the same critical eye to all administrations, not only those that disagree with its writers’ worldview.

When Ford criticizes “the HUD website’s message” or “the Homeland Security Director’s video,” he frames them as signs of institutional decay. But he ignores years of partisan behavior under prior administrations, including the use of federal agencies for ideological purposes. That selectivity is what makes readers question whether the PA Times has drifted from its own principles of fairness.

Public Administration vs. Political Commentary

Public administration at its core is about function, not faction. It is about management, policy delivery and accountability within the rule of law. When a publication under the ASPA banner starts to sound like an op-ed page for political grievances, it moves away from the discipline’s foundation. Ford’s essay does not evaluate policy outcomes, organizational efficiency or administrative structure. It moralizes about current political actors, assuming that dysfunction stems from one ideological direction. That is not public administration analysis; it is a political narrative.

The field should be grounded in evidence, not outrage. If government agencies are failing, we need to ask why the systems are breaking down, not which party we dislike more. The author’s comparisons to a “protectionist economy” or “spoils system” sound more like partisan talking points than academic inquiry.

A Blind Spot in the Call for Civics and Pluralism

Ford ends with a call to restore civics education and pluralism, and I agree with that part. But genuine pluralism means including conservative, libertarian and faith-based perspectives in the discussion. Too often, academia equates pluralism solely with progressive thought. That creates a blind side in which the left’s ideas are treated as neutral and the right’s as dangerous. If PA Times wants to be credible, it must protect the full spectrum of thought, not only the ideas that align with the dominant culture in higher education.

When a publication says it wants “diverse voices,” it must prove it by publishing balanced content—pieces that defend constitutionalism, fiscal restraint, limited government and faith-inspired service alongside progressive ideals. Otherwise, its claim of nonpartisanship becomes hollow.

The Issue Is Control

What Ford calls an “existential threat” to public administration may be something more profound: a struggle for control. Many in academia fear losing influence as ordinary citizens push back against bureaucratic overreach. The crisis Ford describes is not just about polarization; it is about authority—who defines truth, who controls policy, who gets to speak. When experts in public administration frame disagreement as irrationality, they position themselves as the only rational voices left. That is not democracy; that is elitism masquerading as professionalism.

The real test of public administration is not whether it sides with one ideology, but whether it respects freedom of thought, of speech and of conscience. Systems of government fail when they forget that they exist to serve the people, not to manage them into submission.

My Final Word

I believe the PA Times can live up to its mission if it remembers that public administration is supposed to be a bridge, not a weapon. But Ford’s piece shows how that bridge can tilt when political emotion over facts replaces analytical balance. The publication’s guidelines say it avoids bias and partisan advocacy. It should hold itself to that standard. Otherwise, the trust of half the country will vanish, and the discipline that claims to serve democracy (the Constitutional Republic) will instead serve only the side that shouts the loudest.

---

Author: Charles Mason, Ph.D., is a graduate of Walden University in Public Policy and Administration, specializing in Criminal Justice. He is also a graduate of Barry University with a BPA and an MPA, and of Vincennes University with a Bachelor of Science in Homeland Security and Public Safety. He has over 30 years of experience in security, local law enforcement, state corrections and military service. He is currently the president of Mason Academy. He can be reached at [email protected]. Twitter: https://twitter.com/DRCharlesMason

(6 votes, average: 1.83 out of 5)
Loading...