Is the reign of the Erie Times-News "public editor" over?

Is Liz Allen's failure to identify herself for the first
time as "public editor" in the credit line at the bottom
of what appears to be the public editor column today a
nuanced annoucement that the Erie Times-News has decided
to eliminate the position of "public editor," so called?

Or is this not the irregular installment of that column?
It's hard to tell because the "public editor" at the
Times-News wears several hats, a contradiction in terms.
A "public editor" cannot by definition be any other
editor without creating an inherent conflict of interest.
Not to worry. The Times-News recognizes conflicts of
interest only in others, not itself.

If my suspicion is correct, there's no real loss, as the
Times-News's "public editor" has never served that function
as defined within the trade since its inception, starting
with Jeff Pinski through Kevin Cuneo and now Liz Allen.

Instead of being advocates for the public, as public editors
are wont to be, they've been mouthpieces for the newspaper, a
kind of unofficial director of public relations and promotions
for the Times-News.

In today's column, Liz writes about a phone conversation she
had with a reader, Richard Spaeder of Erie, who has subsribed
to the Times-News or one of its aberrations for 59 years.

He apparently called to express his dissatisfaction with the
Times-News's decidedly liberal bent in general, and its
unrelenting editorial campaign against Alaska Governor Sarah Palin,
the Republican vice presidential nominee in particular.

It's interesting to note how Liz distorted Mr. Spaeder's
complaint that the Times-News's Op-Ed content is heavily
weighted against Governor Palin.

To counter that criticizm, Liz broke down the Times-News's
Op-Ed columnists by ideology - liberal, moderate and
conservative. By that count, she said, there's only a
difference of one more liberal columnist than conservative
or moderate(assuming one agrees with her breakdown, which
I don't, e.g., David Broder a "moderate?" Hardly.
He's as left-wing as they come)

But Mr. Spaeder didn't complain about the columnists' known
ideological biases per se if Liz correctly characterized his complaint;
he complained about the ideological CONTENT of the Op-Ed page,
notably that trashing Governor Palin.

His complaint is well-founded. For example, on two consecutive
days last week, the Times-News ran a total of six columns back
to back trashing Palin, none supporting her.

In addition, the selection of Letters to the Editor by the
Times-News's left wing editorial page editor has also been
heavily biased against Governor Palin.

If Liz's omission of the "public editor" credit on her column
today is indicative of a surreptitious Time-News's decision
to eliminate that position, it's not an isolated case.

Today, for example, the public editor for the Sacramento
(California) Bee, the flagship newspaper of the fading
McClatchy Newspaper empire, announced in his column today
that it would be his last as public editor,a victim of top
management budget cuts, joining several other major newspapers
throughout the country which have done the same in recent months.