Imagine, if you can, a newspaper whose owners have a left-leaning political point of view. Suppose that this viewpoint is expressed in a specific way -- oh, I don't know, let's say on its editorial page -- every day.

The news staff, meanwhile, operates independently of the owners. Moreover, if you can imagine it, the news-gatherer-in-chief declines to read editorial board opinions, all the better to protect newsroom neutrality.

Now suppose the advertising department of this newspaper accepts money from a right-wing outfit promoting a tough anti-illegal immigration policy. The group -- let's call it "Controlled Citizenship" -- supports amnesty for any border guard who shoots someone illegally crossing into this country, but its ads avoid its more extreme positions and tout less divisive parts of the group's agenda.

What would happen if the newspaper's left-leaning leadership set aside its financial interests to say, "We find Controlled Citizenship's well-known activities too extreme for us to be comfortable providing them a platform that bears our name"?

You could expect a loud protest from the right. You could anticipate some conservatives wondering publicly whether a newspaper that doesn't allow the free dissemination of all ideas can be trusted to accurately report the news.

You should expect, in fact, a discussion every bit as vigorous as the one now taking place over Duquesne University's decision to refuse Planned Parenthood's money and ads for WDUQ-FM.

And you ought to be able to count on the storm giving way, eventually, to calm rationality.

News of the Catholic university's decision to refuse Planned Parenthood's sponsorship for its radio station has provoked outrage on the left, the political turf that supporters of public broadcasting and abortion rights tend to occupy. Some critics expressed concern that the university's decision threatens the credibility of the radio station, a National Public Radio affiliate; others said Duquesne should surrender its license to a "more responsible" owner.

Cultural leftists don't often get to play the victim. Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest abortion provider. Its fund-raisers are the stuff of society columns -- glittering soirees at local mansions, or Downtown cocktail parties that strain to be hip by inviting young guests to attend in racy underwear.

This viewpoint is so ascendant that it lends a touch of comedy to the current outcry. But as a secular nonprofit institution's very mission, it is seriously at odds with the mission of a Catholic institution.

The problematic nature of an "institution" might seem to lie at the heart of this conflict, and to upend the analogy I proposed of a left-leaning newspaper refusing an extreme right-wing ad. The problem is this: A Catholic institution exists to make good Catholics by insisting on certain ideas. A news company exists to make good money (in theory, anyway) by disseminating lots of conflicting ideas.

But does ownership of a news company by a mission-driven institution like Duquesne pose any greater threat to fair reporting than ownership by dividend-hungry stockholders, or by a forceful individual who declines to reveal his mission, or by an insulated entity like NPR?

The proof lies in the reporting itself. Conservatives who won't read the Post-Gazette because of its leftist editorial positions are missing some great reporting, most notably (and ironically) on religion, which this paper covers with more breadth and richness, I think, than any other in the nation.

Once their dudgeon subsides, DUQ's intelligent, supposedly open-minded listeners ought to ask themselves whether, in fact, they've seen a heavy hand shaping the news. The answer is no.

Word of the university's refusal of Planned Parenthood's money was first aired on WDUQ itself. Through the years the university has not interfered with NPR programming that regularly conflicts with Catholic teaching. Duquesne University clearly did not and does not touch program content.

Earlier this summer all of Pittsburgh's television stations refused to run a Trojan condom ad that featured pigs evolving into humans by buying condoms. The stations that would discuss it simply said it was inappropriate for the local market. The motivation was clearly financial: Don't alienate the customers. There was no outcry.

Duquesne University has risked alienating some "customers" by refusing money for a principle higher than money. Taking a moral stand, no matter how quietly it is done, is always greeted by some as an act of aggression.

Since neither Planned Parenthood nor DUQ's news operation was harmed in any way, unmollified critics might want to consider the possibility that they simply needed to take a shot at the Catholic Church for daring to stand on a principle they don't share.