I've been a Newsweek subscriber for a long time now. I first subscribed while going to college in the States. And I came to value it even more when I moved to Europe in 1990, as it kept me in touch with current events in the U.S.

Lately I feel that Newsweek's quality has been suffering. I'm not talking about articles that I find uninteresting or un-newsworthy, because "newsworthiness" is a matter of personal opinion, and those articles still tell me what's topical in the U.S. at the moment. I am referring to news articles that are one-sided and that promote issues or ideas instead of objectively reporting on them.

For example, there used to be a few pages at the back of every issue called "Tip Sheet," with hints for the modern consumer on what to do and buy. This section was re-christened "The Good Life," and it is now clearly aimed at the wealthy. Each week the section proposes items like a pair of deck shoes for over US $3,000. Or how about a personal yacht, ranging from an "entry level" model priced at 3 million euros, up to a more respectable Trinity yacht for around 24 million euros?

The magazine also has twice-yearly special editions entitled "The Good Life," with articles covering topics like the new rich in the developing world, or the appeal of gated luxury communities. Although I personally do not agree with the distribution of wealth in the world today, I find nothing wrong if Newsweek chooses to write articles about the wealthy. The problem is a lack of objectivity. In the special editions, the articles do not just neutrally report on what the rich can and are doing with their money. The articles tend to revel in it, to promote it as a desirable lifestyle, to suggest, between the lines, "This is what 'success' looks like. This is something worth striving for." We're not talking about a glossy fashion mag. We're talking about an international news magazine.

Another example displays a clear case of bias in a series of articles by a professor of Molecular Biology who consistently writes completely one-sided articles about genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). His articles are full of promises of what GMOs will do for us, while never mentioning the valid concerns and problems that are already appearing with GMOs today.

He once wrote that he couldn't think of any reason why a rational person should be skeptical of GMOs, other than perhaps on personal spiritual grounds. In actual fact, as a professor in the field he certainly understands all the problems and dangers as well as the possibilities. Yet readers of his articles are led to believe that there is no down-side to GMOs. Is this just an accidental case of omission, or is it deception?

Although he is only a guest contributor for Newsweek, the magazine is complicit in biased journalism unless it either requires balance in the article or offers space in the magazine to an opposing viewpoint. Furthermore, these articles appear on a page entitled "science" and not "opinion." In effect, Newsweek is taking sides and promoting one side of a controversial moral issue by omitting -- or permitting the omission of -- half the story. Is this appropriate behavior for a weekly news magazine?

I still believe that Newsweek contains some top-notch reporting. But I also believe that it can do better.