No liberal bias in the media? Who is Chuck Todd kidding, besides himself? | TheHill – The Hill

Its been 20 years since I published my book Bias, about liberal bias in the mainstream media. Because Id spent nearly 30 years as a CBS correspondent, and wrote about what Id personally seen and heard, the book caused quite a stir. It was a bestseller, and over and over I heard the same thing from people whod read it: that it confirmed what they knew from reading mainstream newspapers and watching network newscasts, but they were glad that an insider was confirming their take on the subject.

Predictably, liberal journalists were not among its fans. Almost everyone repeated the mantra that the whole notion of liberal bias was a fiction, an outrage, a right-wing concoction.

Over the years since, many of the bias-deniers have fallen silent. After all, there is only so much even the most arrogant media heavyweight can say in the face of overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence.

So, I was surprised to learn recently that Chuck ToddCharles (Chuck) David ToddNo liberal bias in the media? Who is Chuck Todd kidding, besides himself? Fauci 'very concerned' about COVID-19 surge following Sturgis rally Fauci says some likely to need booster COVID-19 shots MORE, host of NBCs Meet the Press, is still at it.

Now, I should say right here that I once met Chuck Todd at an airport and he seemed like a nice guy. Nor does he strike me and I say this sincerely as a fool. So, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he really cant believe what hes saying, that he cant be serious when he says that liberal bias a) doesnt exist, b) never did and c) is a malicious trope invented by Republicans. But who knows, Im not a mind reader; maybe he does believe it. Or maybe, like a press secretary who must stand straight-faced and defend an obviously disastrous policy blunder, hes just taking one for the home team.

After all, mainstream journalism may not be great for the country, as it continues to sow misunderstanding and ill feeling, but it has been very good for Todd and his friends.

Specifically, what Todd said in a recent interview is that journalists did not defend themselves and their integrity vigorously enough. We should have fought back better in the mainstream media, he said. We shouldnt [have] accepted the premise that there was liberal bias. We ended up in this both-sides trope. We bought into the idea that, Oh my God, were perceived as having a liberal bias.

Hey, Chuck, one is tempted to reply: Theres a reason that mainstream journalists are perceived as having a liberal bias. Its because mainstream journalists have a liberal bias.

But, again, that would be presuming that he expects to be taken seriously. And the fact is, its hard to believe anybody with a pulse, let alone a big-name reporter, actually still thinks the American news media play fair. The American people sure dont. A recent Gallup poll found that only 21 percent of the public has confidence in newspapers and even fewer 16 percent trust TV news. The latter is about the same percentage who believe the U.S. is controlled by Satan worshippers.

Still, in a country of 330 million (not counting those newly arrived across the Southern border), that makes more than 50 million souls still inclined to believe what they hear from the likes of CNNs Jim AcostaJames (Jim) AcostaNo liberal bias in the media? Who is Chuck Todd kidding, besides himself? CNN's Jim Acosta on delta variant: 'Why not call it the DeSantis variant?' Arizona secretary of state to Trump before rally: 'Take your loss and accept it and move on' MORE. So, for their benefit (and possibly Chuck Todds), a quick recap:

In fact, lets start with the way journalists are playing down the mess on our Southern border the one brought on by Joe BidenJoe BidenUtah 'eager' to assist with resettling Afghan refugees: governor Pelosi presses moderate Democrats amid budget standoff Democrat on Biden's claim some Afghans didn't want to leave earlier: 'Utter BS' MORE, who practically sent engraved invitations to everybody in Central America inviting them to come to the United States.

While were on the subject, it is apparently also of little news value that the president at times seems to have trouble finishing a sentence without babbling incoherently.

Of course, whats newsworthy can quickly change, according to circumstances. For a long time, anyone who suggested the Wuhan virus mightve come out of a lab in that city was a conspiracy-mongering, right-wing nut who had to be censored with The New York Times leading the charge. Now that the Wuhan lab story no longer can help Donald TrumpDonald TrumpFeehery: Afghanistan is Biden's Katrina OvernightDefense: US scrambles to get Americans out of Kabul Spike in traffic to DC tunnel website caused operator to contact FBI before Jan. 6 MORE, a writer in The Times wonders, wide-eyed, Did the Coronavirus Come From a Lab?

In fact, to really see just how unbiased journalists are, lets take a stroll down memory lane and contrast how theyre treating Joe Biden with the way they treated You-Know-Who.

Never mind what you think of Trump personally, Ive got big problems with him but does anyone outside the Satan-worshipping community (and possibly Chuck Todd) honestly believe the Times gave him a fair shake?

No need even to go through the particulars; you can pick up pretty much any copy of the Gray Lady from the moment Trump went down the Trump Tower escalator to well, actually today, and it hits you in the face. Case in point: On May 19, 2019, the paper claimed that Donald Trump had run an unabashedly racist campaign harsh, to be sure, but editorial writers are entitled to their opinions, right? Except, wait, this wasnt an editorial; it was presented in a front-page story by two of the papers top political reporters, Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, as indisputable fact.

Indeed, in the Times it was simply a given that Donald Trump, his policies, and his supporters were racist, misogynistic and generally hateful.

The New York Times is journalisms equivalent of the Holy Bible. So completely does it set the agenda for what other news organizations cover in America that trust me, as a correspondent at CBS News for 28 years if the Times went on strike in the morning, CBS wouldnt know what to put on the air that evening.

Little wonder that after Trumps first 100 days in office, a Harvard University study found the Times coverage was 87 percent negative. (By the way, that was topped by NBCs 93 percent negative coverage. But since NBC employs Chuck Todd, that means the study was wrong and the coverage was scrupulously objective.)

Nor was Trump allowed to defend himself. CNN attack-dog Acosta might have been speaking for the entire White House press corps when he reported, after watching Trump respond to media attacks, that the president was ranting and raving for the better part of the last hour.

Then again, as Chuck Todd says, the problem is all perception. Take, for example, the Time story that went viral the day Trump took office, saying hed removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office. It turned out the bust hadnt been moved at all; a Secret Service agent was standing in front of it, so Times guy thought it wasnt there.

Obviously, theres no such thing as liberal bias in the news. Imagine how bad it would be if there were.

Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He was a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel for 22 years and previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

Read the original:

No liberal bias in the media? Who is Chuck Todd kidding, besides himself? | TheHill - The Hill