<table> </table> They call it the &#8220;piling-on effect.&#8221; A particularly hot news topic gets people talking &#8212; and readers perceive that <em>The Kansas City Star </em>gives more space to one side of the argument, stacking the deck of public opinion.</p><p>Without question, I&#8217;ve heard these complaints most often over the years from political supporters of President Bush. Those objections are frequent and consistent: &#8220;<em>The Kansas City Star </em>is nothing but a full-blown organ of the Democratic Party,&#8221; said one recent caller. &#8220;There&#8217;s a radical left-wing agenda in every front-page decision you make.&#8221;</p><p>Others see just the opposite, especially when accusing <em>The Star </em>of not being critical enough during the run-up to the Iraq war: &#8220;A total failure at being the public&#8217;s safety valve.&#8221;</p><p>But moving beyond questions of national politics, I&#8217;ve seen even more passionate debate recently about <em>The Star</em>&#8217;s coverage of subjects with immediate local impact. The consensus of many readers seems to be that the paper gives the impression of endorsing several ideas that invoke passionate debate: Redevelopment of Kansas City&#8217;s downtown, dress codes at the Power &amp; Light District, smoking bans around the metropolitan area, the push for light rail, and criticism of Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline.</p><p>After the Business section&#8217;s July 8 story about various dress codes around the area, one reader applauded the story&#8217;s &#8220;smart nuances,&#8221; but asked why <em>The Star </em>has published so many voices knocking the policies, and sometimes even insinuating racist motivations for them:</p><p>&#8220;You have the editorial, at least two columns, and all the City Council members talking about how terrible this is, but where&#8217;s the other side?&#8221;</p><p>Kline is a frequent focus of comment, as I&#8217;ve noted before. It&#8217;s certainly true that <em>The Star&#8217;s </em>opinion pieces have featured many more knocks than praises for him over the years. And since I work closely with the Letters editor, I can vouch for the fact that traffic there tends to be overwhelmingly negative toward Kline.</p><p>A newsroom is a rather decentralized place, and too many individual pieces can appear in different sections over a short period of time, giving the appearance of an orchestrated campaign. Editors may then step in to equalize things &#8212; but it&#8217;s too late to undo readers&#8217; impressions at that point.</p><p>Another strong conservative voice in the roster of staff columnists would also be a powerful safety valve.</p><p>Speaking of Kline, a few readers have pointed out radio commercials blasting <em>The Star </em>for not highlighting his positive accomplishments. Some of those criticisms are defensible, but one is an outright lie.</p><p>The ad charges that the paper didn&#8217;t cover his successful prosecution of John Henry Horton for the 1974 murder of Lizabeth Wilson earlier this year. The four-column centerpiece photo on Page A-1 March 6, in which Kline is smiling and holding the hand of one of Wilson&#8217;s brothers, shows that&#8217;s simply untrue. In fact, I heard complaints at the time that the picture should have focused on the Wilson family instead.