Tuning out a self-evident truth

About a year ago, when I was still a regular on the Testy Copy Editors bulletin board, several of its members began a collective rant about how silly it was to suggest that the media are biased. One of the indignant posters scoffed that those who make such claims can't produce proof of such biased if pressed.

Set aside for the moment that such unabashed displays of partisan cluelessness eventually led me to leave this intellectual Romper Room. I find it hard to believe that anyone, especially a journalist, can contest this axiom.

If anyone needs proof of the shameless way the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CBS, CNN ad nauseam distort the news to please the liberal establishment, they need only read the respective weekly columns of John Leo or Ann Coulter. Or read Coulter's book "Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right." You can stick to Chapters 4, 5 and 6 if you're pressed for time. If reading is too challenging an intellectual exercise, just watch The O'Reilly Factor for a week. For most liberals, the experience would be a real eye-opener.

Of course, denials of press objectivity seem silly in the aftermath of Memogate. As CBS itself reports, an independent panel concluded that "CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece" and that "CBS News had compounded that failure with a 'rigid and blind' defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report." And don't forget, you had Memogate segment producer Mary Mapes running around trying to get John Kerry campaign guru Joe Lockhart to call Bill Burkett, the guy who supplied CBS with all those fake memos. Outrageous. I hope Ms. Mapes is using some of her well-deserved time off to take a few refresher courses in journalistic ethics.

But the media aren't content to make up stories that reflect unfavorably on the candidate they don't like. Sometimes they simply bury the news. Take Sandy Berger, for instance. Earlier this month, Clinton's former national security adviser pleaded guilty to taking classified 9/11-related documents from the National Archives. As U.S. News & World Report wrote: "What he had initially charaterized as an 'honest mistake' he admitted in federal court involved intentionally putting papers in his jacket and pants. Some documents he subsequently destroyed."

Now let's be honest. If Berger had been a former Reagan official, or a former Bush the Elder official, then the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the rest of the Pravdas for a new millennium would have plastered this story all over their respective front pages. But they continue to ignore this story. Why? (That was a rhetorical question.)

Well, there you have two examples of journalistic bias. I would share it with my old friends at Testy Copy Editors, but I get the sense that it would be a waste of time. Some people prefer remaining blind to the truth. What a shame that some of them are journalists.