New York Times editorial writers figuratively cracked open George W. Bush’s skull, peered into it and in the lead Sunday editorial Oct. 22, “Blowing in the Wind,” revealed why Bush had a “sudden change of heart” and “very publicly consult(ed) with his generals to consider a change in tactics in Iraq.” He is “worried,” the Times autopsy found, “that his party could lose some of its iron grip on power in the Congressional elections next month.”

How does the Times know that? It does not say. Note the want of qualifiers. It’s not that “perhaps” the election is driving the president; the Times states with certainty what is in the president’s mind. It is a plausible guess, but in the absence of any signal from the Times that it had a pipeline to the president’s thinking, guesswork is all that it is.

Equally plausible is the possibility that the president acted because October has been particularly awful in Iraq, with a rising number of attacks and heavy U.S. and Iraqi casualties. Then again, it may be that Laura and the girls are getting on his nerves with their incessant nagging that he quit just standing there as the body counts mount and do something.

The point is, as an editor advised me when I began writing editorials years ago, don’t speculate about motive. Deal with what people say and do, not why you think they did it. Motive is what is in a person’s mind, and is unknowable unless the person reveals it.

All of which is so obvious, elementary even, it’s surprising that Times editors now and then allow editorials to slip into print that are based solely on supposition. When these appear, they contrast unfavorably with the great bulk of editorials in the Times, which are heavily and expertly reported.

The temptation to pontificate about what subjects are thinking shows up occasionally also in news columns. A front-page news analysis in the Times not long ago about Bush’s call for public trials at Guantanamo Bay of 14 terrorism suspects described the president’s motives without a shred of attribution: “In making the announcement…Mr. Bush has more than one agenda at work…He is trying to rebuff a Supreme Court that visibly angered him….And he is trying to divert voters from the morass of Iraq…Mr. Bush is also trying to ignite a new debate…that tries to rekindle memories of the days just after the Sept. 11 attacks….Mr. Bush is betting….” And so on.

All of which, again, is plausible, and all of which readers are entitled to dismiss as so much conjecture since Times editors failed to insist that the writer explain the basis for his opinion. It’s troubling that they did not since the Times tends to be a standard-setter for the press. It would be unfortunate if the press generally concludes that it’s acceptable to substitute surmise for reporting.

In my view, the strongest opinion-writing is grounded on fact, which is why I define editorial writing as reporting plus, the plus being the opinion or interpretation founded on verifiable information.

The public is being swamped nowadays by opinion, not all of it readily apparent. It has become commonplace, for example, for leads about speeches to say, “In a bid to achieve this or that, so-and-so yesterday declared….” without a hint how the reporter is privy to the speaker’s motive.

With much of talk-radio opinion based either on false or questionable premises, it’s important for the print press to set an example. So whether a piece is regarded as a straight news story, analysis or editorial, editors should be on the lookout for speculation about motive and they should ask the all-important question: How do you know that?