Is there liberal bias and error in the media? You darn sure straight tootin’ there is! The press is filled with bias and error—bias and error of many descriptions—and bias and error that could be called "liberal" can surely be found in the stew. And, since no one boohoos about bias any better than Bernie Goldberg, all our analysts sat and watched when Bernie met Marvin last week. Starting a colloquy with Marvin Kalb, Goldberg described an incident which he called the "Exhibit A" of liberal bias. We’ll quote his account in some detail because he cites this one outrage so often:

Bernie was reciting his prime example of "liberal bias"—the example he tends to talk about first. Moving on, he explained his concern:

"You see, this reminds me of the bad old days," Goldberg said, "when the only time a criminal was identified in a news story by race is if he were black." That was done "because the black criminal was seen as what—different, out of the mainstream, certainly inferior…And that’s why we identify conservatives today, because we see them as out of the mainstream, as a little different, maybe as inferior, maybe as dangerous, and that’s the key. That’s Exhibit A, as far as I’m concerned."

As usual, Bernie’s prose was a bit overhet; somehow, conservatives were being singled out just as black criminals once were. Of course, in Bernie’s book, a producer said CBS should try to avoid filming chain gangs which were all black (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/24/02). And Bernie got upset about that statement too, saying that it too showed liberal bias! "We don’t want to give the impression that the only prisoners [in Alabama] are black," the CBS producer had said. The whole thing made Bernie’s blood boil so badly that he ended up quoting the "ex-marine/no-nonsense/straight shooter" cameraman who had filmed the segment in question. "Fuck you," the cameraman told the producer, a "politically correct, sensitive, liberal" guy who was, of course, trashed and held up to ridicule by name. This was just fine for Bernie to do—but Goldberg cried, boohooed and blubbered when Michael Kinsley dared criticize him (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/30/02). That’s right—after dropping a "fuck you" on a producer for voicing a perfectly sensible concern, Bernie had to talk to a shrink to learn why people don’t always praise him. But so it goes when such consummate phonies pretend to write books about bias.

At any rate, Peter Jennings IDing three conservatives is Bernie’s idea of Liberal Bias, Exhibit A. How does the press corps show its bias? "Mainly by identifying every conservative who’s in a story," Bernie said on PBS, just before he told the world about what Jennings had done.

Bernie, of course, was embellishing. For the record, the incident occurred on January 7, 1999, and Jennings did not identify "every conservative" as the senators signed the oath book. Jennings did identify Senators Smith, Santorum and McConnell in the manner Bernie described—and he didn’t ID any solon as "liberal." But he also failed to ID a raft of other conservatives as they signed the book. Among senators normally thought of as conservative, he named but didn’t label Senators Gramm, Hatch, Helms, Lott, Mack and Thurmond. He also named, but did not label, such solons as Lugar, Stevens, Thompson and Warner. Meanwhile, to show you how Jennings was just trashing conservatives this day, get a load of the nasty way he beat up Helms and Thurmond:

As you can see, it was ugly. A bit later, he battered Thurmond again:

Don’t worry, cattle! We’re sure that Bernie can find a way to turn that into lib bias too. In sum, Jennings named twenty Republican senators as they signed, and only labeled three by ideology. To Goldberg, though, this is "Exhibit A"—the key example of the press corps’ vile ways.

Readers, if this is the worst case of liberal bias, can you believe we waste our time on the topic? But before you answer, there’s one other thing you ought to know about this Bernie-hyped incident. What had been the lead-in discussion, before the solons began signing the book? ABC pundits, including Bill Kristol, were explaining a split among Republican senators—between the "moderates," who in some cases didn’t want to call witnesses in the trial, and the "conservatives," who generally did. That is how the question of "moderate" versus "conservative" Republicans first came up this day. Linda Douglass, for example, had already identified Santorum as "Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, very conservative member, one who wants witnesses." Almost surely, that is part of the reason why Jennings IDed the three dudes he did. It was clearly the reason why Cokie Roberts IDed one other solon:

Snowe was "one of those moderate Republicans" who perhaps didn’t want a full trial. Jennings had IDed three others who presumably did. There is no sign that they were being IDed for the reason Goldberg dreamed up—because Jennings and Roberts were helping viewers know how they would vote. As usual, Goldberg doesn’t seem to have done much homework in his searing "Exhibit A" piece. But then, that is perfect par for the course in this consummately inept, lazy book.

Can you believe a word Bernie says? For the record, here’s Goldberg’s account of this incident in Bias itself:

Did Bernie ever sign that "oath book?" This passage plainly makes it sound like Jennings IDed all the cons (see below). For the record, he didn’t "make sure" that his audience knew about Gramm, Hatch, Helms, Stevens, Lott or the young at heart Thurmond.

So there you have it—Exhibit A! Can you explain why Bernie’s crying?

Next: When Bernie met Marvin on public TV, it was Marvin who seemed to be fakin’.

When Bernie met Richard: Bernie rarely looks things up. But then, his reviewers don’t look things up, either. The latest victim was Richard Zoglin, bollixed and bull-roared at Time:

According to Zoglin, Bernie managed to "land a good punch" when he noted that Jennings "label[ed] all the conservatives." Richard thereby slandered Peter. So what kind of bias is that?