MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesMarch 7, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Good evening. Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Is there bias in the media? I actually feel a little silly asking that question. I'm a conservative.
I have been involved in American public life and politics for, what now, 30 years thereabouts, from once place to another. And the idea that anybody would question the existence of a media bias against conservatives, against pro-life individuals like myself, is absolutely absurd to me.
But that question, is there bias in the media, wasn't treated with much respect until recently when a CBS insider put out a book by the same name, “Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News.” Now, I know there were conservatives who felt we should stand up and cheer, we should bow down and cow tow because now somebody is saying it. And I'm thinking to myself, no, please, don't expect too much applause from me.
After all is said and done, I have had this experience for long enough. I just sit here wondering why it took so long for somebody to speak up. And guess what? Tonight I'm going to have an opportunity to put that very question to the man who wrote the book.
Our guest up front is Bernard Goldberg, who spent 30 years as a correspondent and producer for CBS News and who authored the best-selling book “Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News.” We're going to be talking to him this evening about some of the observations that he made in the course of his career and also what led him in the first place to come out with this book.
Welcome to the show, Bernie. And thank you for being with us tonight.
BERNARD GOLDBERG, AUTHOR, “BIAS”: Thank you, Alan, for having me.
KEYES: Well, I'm going to get it off my chest. I hope you won't mind. But since I heard about this and have watched some of the interesting interviews that you've done, I've just wanted to ask one question. How come it took so long?
Some of us have been suffering in the vineyard from the results of this bias for 25 and 30 years before somebody had the courage, like yourself, to stand forward and tell the public the truth. Why was it that somebody hasn't taken that truth on before you did it?
GOLDBERG: Well, it's not because this is a big secret. I mean, it's not only people like you who know this. It's my colleagues, many of my colleagues at CBS News and other people at NBC and ABC, who also know it.
But you called it courageous to stand up and say something about it. I'm not sure that's the right word, as much as I appreciate it. The right word is either naive or just plain stupid.
And the reason other people haven't spoken up is because they're not as naive as I was or as stupid as I was. And —
KEYES: What led you finally — I mean, the actual proximate cause of your coming forward and deciding, well, it's time to do something about this. What led to you do that?
GOLDBERG: Well, I had complained quietly and privately to people at CBS for many years about my perception of liberal bias. And I got absolutely nowhere, as you might imagine.
And then there was a story about a very un-sexy subject, the flat tax and Steve Forbes. And a colleague did a piece on the “CBS Evening News” that really wasn't a news story. It was supposed to be. But it was really an editorial masquerading as a news story. It was a hatchet job. And it was a perfect example, Alan, of something that you've probably noticed a long time ago.
KEYES: Well, we actually have. If I can interrupt you one second, we actually have a little snip-it from that report...
GOLDBERG: Oh, good.
KEYES: ... which will give people a sense of it. Let's look at part of the report by Eric Enberg of CBS News on Steve Forbes' flat tax idea from 1996.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ERIC ENBERG, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: How about Forbes' number one wackiest flat tax promise?
STEVE FORBES, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Parents would have more time to spend with their children and with each other.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right. The sky would be blue all the time.
ENBERG: The fact is, the flat tax is one giant untested theory. One economist suggested that before we risk putting it in, we ought to try it out someplace, like maybe Albania.
Eric Enberg, CBS News, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: Tell me something, Bernie, was that supposed to be a news report or an editorial commentary?
GOLDBERG: You know what? I don't even have to comment after something like this. I mean, that piece makes my case.
And by the way, some very high executives at CBS News call this — well, these aren't their exact words, but we're on TV here, a conspiracy of screw-ups that that piece ever got on the air. And the reason it got on the air is because nobody, as crazy as this sounds, nobody saw anything all that odd about that piece before they put it on the air.
KEYES: Well, now, in the course of your book, you actually lay out what I think is a fairly complex understanding of the roots and sources and nature of this kind of bias. One element of it, which I think everybody always comments on, has to do obviously with the political bias in terms of conservative, liberal, and so forth.
GOLDBERG: Right.
KEYES: As a matter of fact, you mention in your book the surveys that were taken, which show that 89 percent of journalists said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992...
GOLDBERG: Yes.
KEYES: ... compared with just 43 percent of the non-journalist voters.
GOLDBERG: Right.
KEYES: And when they were asked, how do you characterize your political orientation, 61 percent said liberal or moderate to liberal. Only nine percent said they were conservative or moderate to conservative. Now, that seems to represent a pretty big divide between where the media is in terms of its overwhelming identification with one side or other and where the general populace is.
GOLDBERG: Right. Look, the only people who get 89 percent in a contested election are guys named Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein. I mean, nobody gets 89 percent in a contested election.
But I wouldn't mind if Bill Clinton got 99 percent of the journalist vote. I really wouldn't.
But it's human nature, I wouldn't mind if — it's an important point, if — it didn't influence the way they saw the stories they were covering. But human nature is such that of course if 89 percent of the people are voting for Bill Clinton, if 89 percent of the people are for this cause or that cause, if 89 percent of the people are against this or that, it's going to affect how they cover the stories. And if we can have diversity in the news room so we just don't get one point of view, that of a white male, then how about a little diversity of opinion?
KEYES: Well, it seems to affect even the way that they describe people who are acting in the political arena. Here, for instance, is ABC's Peter Jennings during the Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER JENNINGS, ABC ANCHOR: John McCain here of Arizona, left-hander. More right than left in his politics, intending to run for president of the United States. Senator McConnell of Kentucky, very determined conservative member of the Republican Party. Senator Mikulski of Maryland...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Reed of Rhode Island.
JENNINGS: ... tells you something about how often they're in the news, whether they are easily or not easily recognized. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, regarded as the Senate's greatest intellectual, retiring from the Senate now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: Now, in your book, alluding to just this episode, you had a very interesting comment to make about what might seem the subtle but I thought very telling bias in the way that he was describing each of those individuals.
GOLDBERG: Yes, this was the process right before impeachment began where the senators went up to what they call the oath book and promised to be fair and impartial when they heard the testimony at the impeachment. And, as you saw, Peter was giving a live play-by-play on ABC. And he identified all these conservatives.
And I say that's fine. He identified Senator McCain, Senator McConnell, Senator Santorum, Senator Smith. Everybody was a determined conservative or very conservative. And because it's a political process, Alan, I say fine, no problem. We need to know that these people are conservative. And we need to know that that may influence their vote.
The only problem is that when all the liberals went up, they didn't get identified as liberals. I mean, before that segment, there was Senator Kennedy, Senator Kennedy was...
KEYES: What do you think was the reason for that?
GOLDBERG: ... I'm sorry?
KEYES: ... What do you think is the reason for that, that he gives the conservative label to the conservatives but doesn't call the liberals liberal? Why not?
GOLDBERG: Because the media elites, believe it or not, don't see liberals as liberal. They see them as middle of the road. They see their views not as liberal, but as mainstream, reasonable, civilized, sensible. That's the heart of media bias.
KEYES: Well, see, because I reacted to that in the sense that I am a conservative. I'll stand before the public and call myself a conservative any day of the week and run on that as a lot of conservatives do.
I have noticed, though, that liberals, when they run for office in many parts of the country, even in my home state of Maryland where supposedly you have such a liberal bastion, when the liberal senators ran against me, they didn't use the label “liberal” for themselves. Isn't it partly possibly a reflection of the fact that there might even be a bias in favor politically of protecting people from the consequences of that label?
GOLDBERG: Listen, I grew up when one wasn't ashamed to be a liberal. Liberals did great things for this country and made great sacrifices in civil rights, for instance, in the '60s. They sacrificed their lives in some cases.
This shows you how far liberalism has sunken in America where people are ashamed to identify themselves as liberals. And let me make a point very quickly. Not too many years ago in this country, we identified criminals by race only if they were black because we saw black criminals as different, as out of the mainstream, as inferior, probably as more dangerous.
I think the reason we have this obsession today with identifying conservatives, nothing is exactly the same as race in America, but it's similar. And the similarity is that we also see conservatives as different, as out of the mainstream. We see their views as inferior and maybe even dangerous. And that's why we identified blacks once where we didn't identify whites. And that's why we identify conservatives where we rarely identify liberals.
KEYES: But isn't that understanding itself a reflection of a kind of cultural biased perception because, in point of fact, the conservative views, conservative principles, conservative stances, are actually fairly mainstream when you poll the American people on various and assorted issues? So that perception that conservatism is somehow not mainstream doesn't have good support, that itself is a reflection of the bias you're talking about, isn't it?
GOLDBERG: That's exactly it. You see, the reason — I'm not saying these views are out of the mainstream and dangerous and inferior and different. I'm saying the media elites see them as all those things.
And the reason they see them as all those things is because they travel in liberal circles, basically in Manhattan and Washington. And that's why if all their friends have the same views on race and gay rights and feminism and abortion and affirmative action and a bunch of other issues, they just see those views, as I say, as reasonable. So they see the conservative views as out of the mainstream.
But you're right. In America, they're not out of the mainstream at all.
KEYES: And the fascinating thing is when you — as a matter of fact, you talk again in the book in a survey from the “Los Angeles Times,” 49 percent of the public was for a woman's right to choose, 82 percent of the journalists supposedly were in that category.
GOLDBERG: Right. And Alan...
KEYES: Seventy-four percent of the public was for prayer in public schools, 25 percent of the journalists surveyed were for prayer in public schools. In a survey by Peter Brown, an editor at the “Orlando Sentinel,” 3,400 journalists in the survey were found to be less likely to get married, do volunteer service, own homes, and go to church than the general populace.
So we're talking about something that evinces itself in an ideological political result, but really seems to come from something that is seeded in views and a cultural, moral perspective that is also different perhaps than one sees in the public at large.
GOLDBERG: Right. We call it a liberal bias. But it really is a cultural bias.
And I wouldn't care if those journalists had all those views and it didn't affect those stories. But it does affect those stories.
Let's get back to the diversity point. That's why we have diversity. That's why we have black men and black women and Hispanic men and Asian men and Asian women and gays and straights, so not because they'll take the story and slant it in a Hispanic direction, but because they'll bring a certain perspective to the story.
But there's not a great deal of diversity of opinion in the news room. So that's why when you get those statistics that you just read, if it didn't affect the way they cover the story, I wouldn't care. I wouldn't care if 100 percent of the people are for affirmative action or against affirmative action. But it does affect how they cover the story.
KEYES: Well, some of this also affects particular things that they will see in certain ways. I know you mention in your book a quote from someone who says that it's much more likely, that the journalists are much more likely if they're talking about women's issues to go to the National Organization of Women or some left-wing group than they are to go to Concerned Women for America, even in spite of its grassroots presence and strength.
So, at the end of the day, the choices that are involved are choices that have to do with things that go beyond just how you speak about certain things...
GOLDBERG: Right.
KEYES: ... The editing that you're doing as you prepare the story and decide on what's important is also affected, right?
GOLDBERG: Right. You called NOW a left-wing group. I've never heard a mainstream journalist call NOW even a liberal group, forget left-wing. That's the problem. They don't see NOW — by the way, I don't have a problem when they go to NOW for reaction on a woman's story. I think that's a good thing.
But they rarely go to the conservative women's group. And when they do, they always identify them correctly as a conservative women's group. But they almost never identify NOW as a liberal group because they don't see them as a liberal group. They see them, once again, as a mainstream group. If you are so — if your take on America is so jaded, so slanted, so out of whack with how so many other Americans see things, how are you going to get the story right?
KEYES: That's right. Bernie, stay right there because I'd like you to stay with me tonight. We're going to go to a panel discussion as we do quite frequently. We're going to get to the heart of the matter here. We're going to bring in some guests, who — some of whom disagree with Bernie, some of whom believe that he's looking at something that makes sense but kind of had my feeling, why have we had to wait for so long?
And we're going to take a look at these questions on MAKING SENSE. Is there a bias in the media? Are the roots political or ideological or cultural? Is there a remedy?
Later, our open phone line segment. Call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.
But first, you think this makes sense? There's a CDC web site, right? A general government-sponsored Web site for young people that had links, can you believe this, to a site that was tied to this guerrilla sex group that promotes promiscuity. Here we're spending all this time trying to get young people to behave responsibly, and a government Web site has links to a group that promotes promiscuous behavior among teenagers. Does this make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. M. Ridens says: “It's not the media that lies. It's just they report what they see fit and leave a lot out if it doesn't fit with their agenda.” You too can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
Coming up in our next half-hour, we're going to take a look at the present situation in the Mid-East, the dilemma that is emerging. Do they talk or fight?
But first, we're going to be talking about liberal bias. And the fellow who has come forward now to report on that bias after a long career and experience in the media.
Rejoining us is Bernard Goldberg, former CBS News correspondent and author of the best-selling book “Bias.” Also with us, Robert Scheer, syndicated columnist and contributing editor to “The Nation” magazine. And Richard Goldstein is the executive editor of “The Village Voice.” Finally, Brent Bozell, the president of the Media Research Center, a media watchdog group.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you, Alan?
KEYES: Now, Brent, I'm going to exercise my privilege of the chair here and start with you tonight because I'm just sort of wondering whether or not you shared my visceral reaction to the kind of reaction that there has been to Bernie's book, because I kind of felt — well, I won't say a day late and dollar short, but a day late and maybe 25 cents short. But after all the time when one had experienced it, watched it, there was a certain comfort, though, in hearing an insider come forward to tell the world that we weren't just seeing things. What's your take on it?
BRENT BOZELL, PRESIDENT, MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER: Well, I think it says something that this book has turned into a smashing number one bestseller. The public is on to this left-wing press. And they're tired of it. They want balance.
But, you know, to me, it's interesting. And I want to ask Bernie this question flat out. The news media, the networks, the big three networks have no trouble at all putting on the David Brocks (ph) of the world when they attack conservatives or putting on the Kitty Kellys (ph) day after day to be interviewed about their books where they have gossip about Nancy Reagan and Frank Sinatra. How many interviews have you done on network television?
GOLDBERG: Well, before I answer that, let me tell you that I've done about 400 radio shows, about 40 cable TV shows. They've written — or I've been interviewed in about two dozen foreign countries, including China and Australia and New Zealand and England and Canada and Israel and Russia, right, and a lot more.
The only three places I have not been on with this book. And, by the way, it's fine with me. I'm not looking to get on any particular show. It's fine. But to answer your question, Brent, the only three places I haven't been on are ABC news, NBC News, and CBS News. And that includes at 3:00 in the morning on their overnight show.
BOZELL: If that doesn't prove, give you the evidence of the arrogance of the liberal press, nothing does.
KEYES: Robert Scheer, that seems to me to be an indication that what Bernie is reporting in the book is true. I mean, if it weren't true, why aren't they willing to give the kind of attention — I mean, here you have a best-selling book. The public is responding to it. Why aren't the broadcast media types paying the same attention the public seems to be paying?
ROBERT SCHEER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, first of all, the question I'd ask Mr. Goldberg is why didn't he quit if he thought this was such a horrible network that he was working for? And why didn't he expose them?
But I think the premise here, let's take the presidents. Are you suggesting to me that Bill Clinton was treated more generously, more easily, by the “New York Times” and CBS than Ronald Reagan or George Bush? I think it's an absurd position. I think polling people about how they vote is not the operative question. The operative question is what do they report?
And the so-called liberal media, the “New York Times,” CBS, what have you, went out to destroy Bill Clinton. They went after him from day one. They didn't give him a moment's peace.
And, on the other hand, when Richard Nixon was involved with Watergate, the media didn't cover it until after the 1972 election. And they smashed George McGovern every which way. Now George Bush is getting off the hook on Enron, gentle, and a major scandal compared to Whitewater. So, I just don't see the evidence. It seems to me preposterous.
GOLDBERG: Well, it wouldn't be preposterous if you had read the book because I said — or if you had listened to Alan just a few minutes ago, because Alan said it is not about how they handle politics. You may live in a political world. But most of us out here in America don't.
It's how they cover the big social issues. You started out your answer by raising a question. If I thought it was so terrible, why didn't I leave? I've heard that question over and over again. And I swear to you, I don't understand it.
I was trying to make things better. Let's say they weren't talking about news bias but racial bias. And let's say they were walking around calling black people, should we say it? We all know what word I'm talking about. And I said for years and years in-house, hey, knock it off, this isn't right. And they ignored me for years and years. And then one day I wrote about it.
Am I supposed to quit? Why should I quit? I didn't do anything wrong. If anybody should quit, they should quit. I find that question, frankly...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: One second, gentlemen.
SCHEER: The issue is why didn't you go public? Why didn't you tell people this?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: One word, please. Before we go on...
SCHEER: ... difference between politics and issues. Ronald Reagan was against abortion. Ronald Reagan was a social conservative. And the media treated him quite gently.
KEYES: Robert Scheer, hold on a second.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I'm going to get an idea because, first of all, I can't let you, Robert, get away with continually alluding to the media's treatment of the Reagan years as if they let somebody off the hook. During the course of Clinton years when we had all kinds of confirmed shenanigans going on, it took them forever before they finally got the point and started to acknowledge what was happening, right? And it had been going on for a long time before that.
SCHEER: No, no.
KEYES: No, no, you hold on a second. I remember — excuse me.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I remember during the course of the Reagan years...
SCHEER: That's just not true.
KEYES: ... that with nothing to go on in terms of Ed Meese and others, they continually talked about the sleaze factor and all these things when there was no fire to that smoke.
But before we go on, I want to hear what Richard Goldstein has to say in response. After all, we are dealing with a situation here where I think even the treatment of Bernie Goldberg shows that that bias is clear. Don't you see it, Richard? Isn't it clear?
RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, “THE VILLAGE VOICE”: You know, I can't believe I'm on a conservative talk show with, speaking mildly, a staunchly conservative host, one of maybe half a dozen shows like this on cable television. And I'm being told that there's a bias against conservatives.
If there were a bias against conservatives in the media, you would be a professor. The fact is — and I ask myself, why is it that you and Pat Buchanan and George Will and lots of other people are all on television? It's because there's a market for you. That's why you're on television.
I don't say that the media have a conservative bias because there's no talk show host as progressive as you are conservative. I say that there's a public for it. And if the media have a bias, it's like a heat seeking missile. They look for consensus. And there's a public consensus, that is the media's bias. And if there's a consensus that you belong on television, you'll be on television.
KEYES: That's nonsense.
GOLDSTEIN: Why are you here?
KEYES: That's nonsense.
GOLDSTEIN: Why are you here?
KEYES: Let me answer that. Let me answer that.
GOLDSTEIN: Why are you on the air if there's a bias against you?
KEYES: The interesting thing is that after many, many years, I've been involved in public life in one way or another for 30 years. For the last five or so maybe, there has been, especially in the television media, because of the emergence of cable with niche marketing where you can actually see the ability to appeal to a particular audiences...
GOLDSTEIN: What about George Will?
KEYES: ... Let me finish. You have the cable networks, who are opening up to an opportunity and starting to pursue it.
GOLDSTEIN: But what about George Will? He's on network television.
KEYES: If you look at the broadcast media, a real conservative with the kind of views, for instance, that I have on the abortion issue, the kind of views that I have on the issues of church and state...
GOLDSTEIN: Alan, would you call George Will a communist? Would you call him a socialist?
KEYES: You don't hear a single word. And indeed when folks like myself are out there doing things, they don't even bother to pick up on it. I'll give one example.
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDSTEIN: You're biting the hand that feeds you, and it feeds you very well, Alan.
KEYES: I'll give one example. I'll give one example. During the course of the 2000 season, there were several of the Democrat debates that were broadcast on broadcast television. Not a single one of the Republican debates was shown on broadcast network television. And you tell me there's not a bias? Where the conservatives appear, they don't look.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Go ahead.
BOZELL: When you rattle off all the names of the conservatives who are on television today or on the radio, the Rush Limbaughs, the Alan Keyes, whoever it might be, what do they all have in common? Number one, every single last one of them is labeled a conservative. And every single one of them happily accepts that.
And, number two, every single one of them is labeled a commentator. But if you're a liberal, A, you're objective. And, B, you're a reporter.
GOLDSTEIN: Mr. Bozell, there is no progressive talk show host on television.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Bernie Goldberg, I want to get a last word from Bernie. But I'll tell you something. The clear reason why you don't need it, if you have nearly the whole of that spectrum being filled up with culturally biased material where editorial choices are leaning in that direction and so forth and so on, and then you cite the few exceptions on cable or talk radio or something else, you've got everybody else to bias the media.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Bernie, what's your final thought, because we're coming down to the wire here?
GOLDBERG: My final thought.
GOLDSTEIN: Why are we coming down to the wire? He's been talking all this time.
GOLDBERG: My final thought, except for Brent and you, Alan, is that if these TV signals really do travel through space and someday wind up on a planet that's inhabited, they will think that there's no intelligent life on Earth. That's my final thought.
(LAUGHTER)
KEYES: Well, I think that it is remarkable, the lively discussion we've had obviously proves that, first of all, I think Bernie Goldberg's book has touched a nerve not only with the American public, but with those in the media themselves, who I think understand and know what we're talking about.
I know from experience. People often wondered, during my campaign, for instance, and they would ask me whether I thought the racial thing or things like that were a serious problem. And, sure, there are some things you have to encounter in that regard. But I'll tell you, the most serious liability that I had in terms of the media coverage and everything else was the fact that I was a strong, moral, pro-life conservative who had views, particularly on the social issues, that run counter to the dominant cultural bias that the media folks come from.
And I think that that's the problem here. It's not just a question of politics. It's a question of education and background and views and the fact that there are certain people like myself who stand diametrically opposed to the cultural instincts of the folks who, by and large, populate and dominate the American media. And that, I think, is the root cause of the problem. And Bernie Goldberg clearly gets at that problem, takes a complex view of the subject that then helps us to understand where it comes from.
Now, we're going to have to try this over again because we're going to have to take a look at what we do about it one of these days. We'll have to have you back, Bernie. Thank you for coming.
GOLDBERG: OK.
KEYES: Really appreciate it. And thank you all for participating today.
Next, we're going to take a look at the future of the Mideast and Iraq, and whether or not in present circumstances they're going to make the choice to talk or fight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes. As Lester Holt just reported, within the last hour, Israeli forces shot and killed the commander of Palestinian security forces for the southern Gaza Strip. Also today in New York City, Kofi Annan met with the Iraq foreign minister, and they were discussing the question of whether or not inspectors should be sent back into Iraq, dealing with the challenge of that country's possible access to weapons of mass destruction.
Obviously, things are heating up, coming to a boil in the Middle East, and as an envoy goes there from President G.W. Bush, the question that is on the table — are we going to see intensified conflict, or is a path going to open up that leads to negotiation, to discussion, to some way to resolve these questions without all-out war between the Arabs and the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Israelis, or an American invasion of Iraq. Do they talk or fight?
Joining us now to discuss what's happening in the Middle East is a retired three-star general and MSNBC analyst Bernard Trainor. He is a former U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant general and the co-author of the book “The General's War.” General Trainor is currently a senior fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations. Also with us, Charles Kupchan, a former National Security Council official during the Clinton administration. He is currently a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor of international relations at Georgetown University.
Welcome, gentlemen, to MAKING SENSE. Let me go first to you, general. In terms of what we are looking at now in the Arab-Israeli situation, are we on the verge of all-out war, and are we going to see that breaking out now, involving those two parties?
LT. GEN. BERNARD TRAINOR (RET), U.S. MARINE CORPS: Alan, I think they're already at war. That's a terrible situation out there. Neither side at this particular point is willing to blink or back off. This is the third trip out there that General Zinni has taken. We have expended a lot of efforts, not only this administration but previous administrations, trying to come to some sort of a negotiated solution.
At this particular point, both sides seem to be dug in and are going to see the entire process through to the end. And what the end would be, it seems to me at this judgment is that both sides are just going to become exhausted and will go through the cycle then of negotiations and, once again, probably at some future date, go back into conflict.
There's the hope, of course, that the trial balloon that was set up by Abdullah of Saudi Arabia might provide the basis for some sort of a solution, but, you know, that's a sort of thing of where you buy low and sell high.
KEYES: Now obviously, Ariel Sharon has made a judgment, at the moment, I think, that is looking to try using military force to alter that situation. We are also faced with a decision now, which people have talked about off and on with respect to U.S. policy in that region, particularly toward Iraq. Are we also going to see a decision taken by our president which goes toward the military option, and do you think that would make sense?
TRAINOR: It's a very difficult one. Let me tell you where I stand on this, Alan. The president has made the statement that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat to the United States in his own right with his development of weapons of mass destruction, close, perhaps to having nuclear weapons, but also as a repository and a supporter of the transnational terrorists that we're currently fighting and providing them weapons of mass destruction.
Now, if that is true, the president of the United States, who has the constitutional responsibility of protecting the United States, its people and its institutions, is faced with almost an imperative to act to protect ourselves from that particular threat. It would seem to me that if it is true, there is no choice but if Saddam Hussein will not back down, and there's no indication that he will, that we will have to take military action against them and probably the sooner the better.
KEYES: Charles Kupchan, looking at that situation, obviously there are those out there, Kofi Annan trying, others trying to revive some element that would go toward a less military solution, looking to revive the presence of inspectors, deal somehow with the concerns that the U.S. and others have with respect to Iraq. Do you think that the military option now has to trump those kinds of efforts?
TRAINOR: I think it would be too soon to say that the military option should trump diplomacy. I would rather see the two tracks move in parallel fashion. That is to say, we try to get the weapons inspectors back in, we try to use our diplomatic weight to get Saddam Hussein to open up his country, but realize full well that he may not, that he may continue to tool around and drag us along and let him in one day and kick him out the next.
And that's why I think at the same time, you start moving in the direction of a military option, an option that would remove Saddam Hussein from power. I think that has three main elements. One is to try to begin to rearm and give support to a domestic opposition inside Iraq, which is still very weak and fragmented. Secondly, to try to begin to get some help from our coalition allies, the Turks, the Brits, perhaps, and that's partly why I think we need to work the diplomatic angle because they're not with us at this point, and third, we start looking at the possibility of first limited military strikes against weapons depots, weapons factories, and then ultimately the prospect of a full scale U.S. invasion, which I think is something that would be very costly but necessary, because we don't see in the country a real set of allies that will help us do the ground war like we had in Afghanistan.
KEYES: Now, Bernard Trainor, I have a question that occurs to me as I listen to what Charles Kupchan is saying. Given that we have ascribed urgency to this situation after September 11, the prospect that this might feed somehow into the terrorist network and threaten us directly with weapons of mass destruction. Do you think we have the time to wait and pursue the kind of avenues that Charles is talking about?
TRAINOR: Well, if what the president believes is true, that we are in grave danger, I don't think we have the time to wait. I think it's the time to move. I think if we are going to move, I think it's very, very important to do two things: number one, inform the world and the Iraqis that we are serious and that Saddam Hussein's days are numbered, and we are going to take out Saddam Hussein and the Baathist regime and replace it with something else.
The second thing is to concentrate on the Iraqi military forces and tell them that it is in their interest, and in Iraq's interest to turn against the regime and use our military power to punish them not like we did in the Gulf War, we hit their infrastructure and caused a lot of civilian casualties, but focus on their military to convince them that, look, the jig is up, this guy is going to go. And it is in your interest to turn against the regime and make use of the Iraqi army as the instrument of deposition.
Now, we don't aim at the generals who are beholden to Saddam Hussein, but in my view, you focus your psychological operations on the brigade commanders and the battalion commanders, the so called young Turks who see in the interest of Iraq to turn against Saddam Hussein and support to Shias in the south and the Kurds in the north to assist in this entire effort, with the U.S. backing up with massive forces as an indication of our earnest.
KEYES: Now, I — last question to put to you, Charles Kupchan, 'cause listening to that, and you did talk about the possibility of kind of playing these things off against one another, being prepared to do something militarily, but at the end of the day, how can we keep the door open to chatter and expect some kind of cooperation if we're declaring that we're going to overthrow the guy?
I mean, don't we really have to make a clear choice here and commit ourselves in order to get an effective job done?
CHARLES KUPCHAN, FMR. NSC MEMBER: I think the key here is to neutralize his regime. If that means going in and getting rid of him, fine. If it means containing him, fine. I'm just a little less optimistic than Nick Trainor, that we can do all of what he describes in an easy way. I mean let's look at some of the numbers. They've got about 400,000 troops, 100,000 of which are very good Republican guard fighters. They didn't defect in the Gulf War, we had 500,000 troops on the ground. And they also only have about 50,000 opposition figures, and I am being charitable there, who will be fighting. So I think it's not going to be that easy to dislodge the regime, and get the army to defect.
And I also think we have to ask the big question, what comes next? Do we really want to go in and install a new regime through force and will that regime be any better? We installed the shah in Iran, for example. He was eventually thrown out and Iran became one of our arch-enemies. So I think the military option has to be out there to provide pressure, and we may need it. But I see it as a last resort, and not something we should go to in the very near future.
KEYES: Well, I want to thank both of you for joining us. Again, I think you all have clearly laid out some of the options that are available. And I think also given us an understanding of why this is something that the administration is wrestling with, I think with some difficulty as they try to come down this way and that.
We've talked about this before on the program, but I have to say that I think the point that Charles Kupchan raised at the end, and that General Trainor alluded to — how we move about this is not only a question of the military outcome, it's a question of being sure that we have done the groundwork to put in place a regime that isn't going to further destabilize the situation. And I think clearly from all that I have read and heard and the kind of folks we've had on the show here as well, you all can understand that this is a possibility. I don't think it's impossible. But I think it's going to require careful work, and I would have to say it's going to require a single minded commitment.
We do need to make up our minds clearly about what our objective is and move toward it consistently, because I think if we continue to act as if we can have it both ways, we will end up with a policy that is confused and divided against itself. And that in the past for America has meant clear disaster.
Well, next I want to hear what's on your mind. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA, 1-866-KEYES-USA. And later, we'll get to my outrage of the day where America seems to be funding, in a very negative kind of way, a better Chinese population. I'll explain myself during the outrage of the day. You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now let's find out what's on your mind. We'll start with Monique from Texas. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
MONIQUE: Hello, Mr. Keyes.
KEYES: Hi.
MONIQUE: What an honor to speak with you.
KEYES: My pleasure.
MONIQUE: May I also say I'm thrilled to see you on the air. I was really astonished in the first place that MSNBC negotiated a show for you, considering I feel is their far left bias and especially after their treatment of you during the presidential race. I was wondering if you could comment on that and also will I ever get a chance to vote for you again?
KEYES: Well, I don't know what the future might hold in many respects, certainly not in that one. I think that I have been very pleased that we were able to put together something that allows us to try to bring quality programming to folks on MSNBC that will discuss things from a point of view that I think has integrity. And I'm grateful for the opportunity and we're going to work hard to make sure we make it a success. So I thank you for that thought.
Let's go to Joe from Pennsylvania. Joe, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JOE: Hi, Alan. I just want to say that the Clinton years are called by the media years of prosperity and progress, but then the Reagan years looking back are labeled Reagonomics, tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor. What's your response to that so-called journalist objectivity?
KEYES: Well, I think it's clear that there is a lens through which they see things. It was one the reasons that I pointed out that during the Clinton years, it took forever, it was like pulling teeth, to get them to finally look at all the junk that was going on. And yet, with very little to go on, they labeled the Reagan administration close to the beginning as sleazy and the sleaze factor and could never get enough of that. I thought it was fascinating, that contrast which was clear.
Let's go to John from Virginia. John, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JOHN: Thank you, Alan. You have an excellent program and it's refreshing and that's the key. I'm going to go back a little ways. Remember when Rush Limbaugh first came on TV, I was so shocked. I was so conditioned to see all liberals on there that my thought was, I can't believe they let him on the air. And now it's — this is a relatively new thing. And I want to point out too, notice how the liberals had to talk over you guys? They just had to talk and talk and keep you quiet.
KEYES: Well, you know, I think that we are seeing some changes, mainly because of the reaction of the public. But this is an issue we're going to get back to, you bet. I think it was a fascinating discussion. We'll get back to it again. Thanks for your feedback.
Next, my outrage of the day. China's policy and our support for it. And if you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter. Log on to our Web site, KEYES.MSNBC.COM. Each day in your mailbox, you'll get show topics, my weekly column and links to my favorite articles of the day.
I'll be right back with my outrage of the day. You stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now my outrage of the day. I received a report today that the Centers for Disease Control is offering a $1 million to the Beijing University Health Science Center to carry out eugenics research in China. The grant establishes “a cooperative agreement between the People's Republic and the United States for the study of birth defects and other reproductive and developmental outcomes in china.”
Now that sounds like a wonderful goal to promote optimal birth rates and outcomes in China and so forth. The truth is that the Chinese particularly target ethnic minorities with a program that actually claims that they find higher rates of cretins, idiots, imbeciles among minority populations and, therefore, sterilize them in larger numbers. They have as their objective not improving the health, but improving the quality of the Chinese population, meaning they're looking for the “superman”, just the way the Nazis did. Why would we want to put our money behind that kind of a moral outrage?
That's my sense of it. Lester Holt is up next. We'll see you on Monday.
Is there bias in the media? I actually feel a little silly asking that question. I'm a conservative.
I have been involved in American public life and politics for, what now, 30 years thereabouts, from once place to another. And the idea that anybody would question the existence of a media bias against conservatives, against pro-life individuals like myself, is absolutely absurd to me.
But that question, is there bias in the media, wasn't treated with much respect until recently when a CBS insider put out a book by the same name, “Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News.” Now, I know there were conservatives who felt we should stand up and cheer, we should bow down and cow tow because now somebody is saying it. And I'm thinking to myself, no, please, don't expect too much applause from me.
After all is said and done, I have had this experience for long enough. I just sit here wondering why it took so long for somebody to speak up. And guess what? Tonight I'm going to have an opportunity to put that very question to the man who wrote the book.
Our guest up front is Bernard Goldberg, who spent 30 years as a correspondent and producer for CBS News and who authored the best-selling book “Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News.” We're going to be talking to him this evening about some of the observations that he made in the course of his career and also what led him in the first place to come out with this book.
Welcome to the show, Bernie. And thank you for being with us tonight.
BERNARD GOLDBERG, AUTHOR, “BIAS”: Thank you, Alan, for having me.
KEYES: Well, I'm going to get it off my chest. I hope you won't mind. But since I heard about this and have watched some of the interesting interviews that you've done, I've just wanted to ask one question. How come it took so long?
Some of us have been suffering in the vineyard from the results of this bias for 25 and 30 years before somebody had the courage, like yourself, to stand forward and tell the public the truth. Why was it that somebody hasn't taken that truth on before you did it?
GOLDBERG: Well, it's not because this is a big secret. I mean, it's not only people like you who know this. It's my colleagues, many of my colleagues at CBS News and other people at NBC and ABC, who also know it.
But you called it courageous to stand up and say something about it. I'm not sure that's the right word, as much as I appreciate it. The right word is either naive or just plain stupid.
And the reason other people haven't spoken up is because they're not as naive as I was or as stupid as I was. And —
KEYES: What led you finally — I mean, the actual proximate cause of your coming forward and deciding, well, it's time to do something about this. What led to you do that?
GOLDBERG: Well, I had complained quietly and privately to people at CBS for many years about my perception of liberal bias. And I got absolutely nowhere, as you might imagine.
And then there was a story about a very un-sexy subject, the flat tax and Steve Forbes. And a colleague did a piece on the “CBS Evening News” that really wasn't a news story. It was supposed to be. But it was really an editorial masquerading as a news story. It was a hatchet job. And it was a perfect example, Alan, of something that you've probably noticed a long time ago.
KEYES: Well, we actually have. If I can interrupt you one second, we actually have a little snip-it from that report...
GOLDBERG: Oh, good.
KEYES: ... which will give people a sense of it. Let's look at part of the report by Eric Enberg of CBS News on Steve Forbes' flat tax idea from 1996.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ERIC ENBERG, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: How about Forbes' number one wackiest flat tax promise?
STEVE FORBES, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Parents would have more time to spend with their children and with each other.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right. The sky would be blue all the time.
ENBERG: The fact is, the flat tax is one giant untested theory. One economist suggested that before we risk putting it in, we ought to try it out someplace, like maybe Albania.
Eric Enberg, CBS News, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: Tell me something, Bernie, was that supposed to be a news report or an editorial commentary?
GOLDBERG: You know what? I don't even have to comment after something like this. I mean, that piece makes my case.
And by the way, some very high executives at CBS News call this — well, these aren't their exact words, but we're on TV here, a conspiracy of screw-ups that that piece ever got on the air. And the reason it got on the air is because nobody, as crazy as this sounds, nobody saw anything all that odd about that piece before they put it on the air.
KEYES: Well, now, in the course of your book, you actually lay out what I think is a fairly complex understanding of the roots and sources and nature of this kind of bias. One element of it, which I think everybody always comments on, has to do obviously with the political bias in terms of conservative, liberal, and so forth.
GOLDBERG: Right.
KEYES: As a matter of fact, you mention in your book the surveys that were taken, which show that 89 percent of journalists said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992...
GOLDBERG: Yes.
KEYES: ... compared with just 43 percent of the non-journalist voters.
GOLDBERG: Right.
KEYES: And when they were asked, how do you characterize your political orientation, 61 percent said liberal or moderate to liberal. Only nine percent said they were conservative or moderate to conservative. Now, that seems to represent a pretty big divide between where the media is in terms of its overwhelming identification with one side or other and where the general populace is.
GOLDBERG: Right. Look, the only people who get 89 percent in a contested election are guys named Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein. I mean, nobody gets 89 percent in a contested election.
But I wouldn't mind if Bill Clinton got 99 percent of the journalist vote. I really wouldn't.
But it's human nature, I wouldn't mind if — it's an important point, if — it didn't influence the way they saw the stories they were covering. But human nature is such that of course if 89 percent of the people are voting for Bill Clinton, if 89 percent of the people are for this cause or that cause, if 89 percent of the people are against this or that, it's going to affect how they cover the stories. And if we can have diversity in the news room so we just don't get one point of view, that of a white male, then how about a little diversity of opinion?
KEYES: Well, it seems to affect even the way that they describe people who are acting in the political arena. Here, for instance, is ABC's Peter Jennings during the Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER JENNINGS, ABC ANCHOR: John McCain here of Arizona, left-hander. More right than left in his politics, intending to run for president of the United States. Senator McConnell of Kentucky, very determined conservative member of the Republican Party. Senator Mikulski of Maryland...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Reed of Rhode Island.
JENNINGS: ... tells you something about how often they're in the news, whether they are easily or not easily recognized. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, regarded as the Senate's greatest intellectual, retiring from the Senate now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: Now, in your book, alluding to just this episode, you had a very interesting comment to make about what might seem the subtle but I thought very telling bias in the way that he was describing each of those individuals.
GOLDBERG: Yes, this was the process right before impeachment began where the senators went up to what they call the oath book and promised to be fair and impartial when they heard the testimony at the impeachment. And, as you saw, Peter was giving a live play-by-play on ABC. And he identified all these conservatives.
And I say that's fine. He identified Senator McCain, Senator McConnell, Senator Santorum, Senator Smith. Everybody was a determined conservative or very conservative. And because it's a political process, Alan, I say fine, no problem. We need to know that these people are conservative. And we need to know that that may influence their vote.
The only problem is that when all the liberals went up, they didn't get identified as liberals. I mean, before that segment, there was Senator Kennedy, Senator Kennedy was...
KEYES: What do you think was the reason for that?
GOLDBERG: ... I'm sorry?
KEYES: ... What do you think is the reason for that, that he gives the conservative label to the conservatives but doesn't call the liberals liberal? Why not?
GOLDBERG: Because the media elites, believe it or not, don't see liberals as liberal. They see them as middle of the road. They see their views not as liberal, but as mainstream, reasonable, civilized, sensible. That's the heart of media bias.
KEYES: Well, see, because I reacted to that in the sense that I am a conservative. I'll stand before the public and call myself a conservative any day of the week and run on that as a lot of conservatives do.
I have noticed, though, that liberals, when they run for office in many parts of the country, even in my home state of Maryland where supposedly you have such a liberal bastion, when the liberal senators ran against me, they didn't use the label “liberal” for themselves. Isn't it partly possibly a reflection of the fact that there might even be a bias in favor politically of protecting people from the consequences of that label?
GOLDBERG: Listen, I grew up when one wasn't ashamed to be a liberal. Liberals did great things for this country and made great sacrifices in civil rights, for instance, in the '60s. They sacrificed their lives in some cases.
This shows you how far liberalism has sunken in America where people are ashamed to identify themselves as liberals. And let me make a point very quickly. Not too many years ago in this country, we identified criminals by race only if they were black because we saw black criminals as different, as out of the mainstream, as inferior, probably as more dangerous.
I think the reason we have this obsession today with identifying conservatives, nothing is exactly the same as race in America, but it's similar. And the similarity is that we also see conservatives as different, as out of the mainstream. We see their views as inferior and maybe even dangerous. And that's why we identified blacks once where we didn't identify whites. And that's why we identify conservatives where we rarely identify liberals.
KEYES: But isn't that understanding itself a reflection of a kind of cultural biased perception because, in point of fact, the conservative views, conservative principles, conservative stances, are actually fairly mainstream when you poll the American people on various and assorted issues? So that perception that conservatism is somehow not mainstream doesn't have good support, that itself is a reflection of the bias you're talking about, isn't it?
GOLDBERG: That's exactly it. You see, the reason — I'm not saying these views are out of the mainstream and dangerous and inferior and different. I'm saying the media elites see them as all those things.
And the reason they see them as all those things is because they travel in liberal circles, basically in Manhattan and Washington. And that's why if all their friends have the same views on race and gay rights and feminism and abortion and affirmative action and a bunch of other issues, they just see those views, as I say, as reasonable. So they see the conservative views as out of the mainstream.
But you're right. In America, they're not out of the mainstream at all.
KEYES: And the fascinating thing is when you — as a matter of fact, you talk again in the book in a survey from the “Los Angeles Times,” 49 percent of the public was for a woman's right to choose, 82 percent of the journalists supposedly were in that category.
GOLDBERG: Right. And Alan...
KEYES: Seventy-four percent of the public was for prayer in public schools, 25 percent of the journalists surveyed were for prayer in public schools. In a survey by Peter Brown, an editor at the “Orlando Sentinel,” 3,400 journalists in the survey were found to be less likely to get married, do volunteer service, own homes, and go to church than the general populace.
So we're talking about something that evinces itself in an ideological political result, but really seems to come from something that is seeded in views and a cultural, moral perspective that is also different perhaps than one sees in the public at large.
GOLDBERG: Right. We call it a liberal bias. But it really is a cultural bias.
And I wouldn't care if those journalists had all those views and it didn't affect those stories. But it does affect those stories.
Let's get back to the diversity point. That's why we have diversity. That's why we have black men and black women and Hispanic men and Asian men and Asian women and gays and straights, so not because they'll take the story and slant it in a Hispanic direction, but because they'll bring a certain perspective to the story.
But there's not a great deal of diversity of opinion in the news room. So that's why when you get those statistics that you just read, if it didn't affect the way they cover the story, I wouldn't care. I wouldn't care if 100 percent of the people are for affirmative action or against affirmative action. But it does affect how they cover the story.
KEYES: Well, some of this also affects particular things that they will see in certain ways. I know you mention in your book a quote from someone who says that it's much more likely, that the journalists are much more likely if they're talking about women's issues to go to the National Organization of Women or some left-wing group than they are to go to Concerned Women for America, even in spite of its grassroots presence and strength.
So, at the end of the day, the choices that are involved are choices that have to do with things that go beyond just how you speak about certain things...
GOLDBERG: Right.
KEYES: ... The editing that you're doing as you prepare the story and decide on what's important is also affected, right?
GOLDBERG: Right. You called NOW a left-wing group. I've never heard a mainstream journalist call NOW even a liberal group, forget left-wing. That's the problem. They don't see NOW — by the way, I don't have a problem when they go to NOW for reaction on a woman's story. I think that's a good thing.
But they rarely go to the conservative women's group. And when they do, they always identify them correctly as a conservative women's group. But they almost never identify NOW as a liberal group because they don't see them as a liberal group. They see them, once again, as a mainstream group. If you are so — if your take on America is so jaded, so slanted, so out of whack with how so many other Americans see things, how are you going to get the story right?
KEYES: That's right. Bernie, stay right there because I'd like you to stay with me tonight. We're going to go to a panel discussion as we do quite frequently. We're going to get to the heart of the matter here. We're going to bring in some guests, who — some of whom disagree with Bernie, some of whom believe that he's looking at something that makes sense but kind of had my feeling, why have we had to wait for so long?
And we're going to take a look at these questions on MAKING SENSE. Is there a bias in the media? Are the roots political or ideological or cultural? Is there a remedy?
Later, our open phone line segment. Call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.
But first, you think this makes sense? There's a CDC web site, right? A general government-sponsored Web site for young people that had links, can you believe this, to a site that was tied to this guerrilla sex group that promotes promiscuity. Here we're spending all this time trying to get young people to behave responsibly, and a government Web site has links to a group that promotes promiscuous behavior among teenagers. Does this make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. M. Ridens says: “It's not the media that lies. It's just they report what they see fit and leave a lot out if it doesn't fit with their agenda.” You too can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
Coming up in our next half-hour, we're going to take a look at the present situation in the Mid-East, the dilemma that is emerging. Do they talk or fight?
But first, we're going to be talking about liberal bias. And the fellow who has come forward now to report on that bias after a long career and experience in the media.
Rejoining us is Bernard Goldberg, former CBS News correspondent and author of the best-selling book “Bias.” Also with us, Robert Scheer, syndicated columnist and contributing editor to “The Nation” magazine. And Richard Goldstein is the executive editor of “The Village Voice.” Finally, Brent Bozell, the president of the Media Research Center, a media watchdog group.
Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you, Alan?
KEYES: Now, Brent, I'm going to exercise my privilege of the chair here and start with you tonight because I'm just sort of wondering whether or not you shared my visceral reaction to the kind of reaction that there has been to Bernie's book, because I kind of felt — well, I won't say a day late and dollar short, but a day late and maybe 25 cents short. But after all the time when one had experienced it, watched it, there was a certain comfort, though, in hearing an insider come forward to tell the world that we weren't just seeing things. What's your take on it?
BRENT BOZELL, PRESIDENT, MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER: Well, I think it says something that this book has turned into a smashing number one bestseller. The public is on to this left-wing press. And they're tired of it. They want balance.
But, you know, to me, it's interesting. And I want to ask Bernie this question flat out. The news media, the networks, the big three networks have no trouble at all putting on the David Brocks (ph) of the world when they attack conservatives or putting on the Kitty Kellys (ph) day after day to be interviewed about their books where they have gossip about Nancy Reagan and Frank Sinatra. How many interviews have you done on network television?
GOLDBERG: Well, before I answer that, let me tell you that I've done about 400 radio shows, about 40 cable TV shows. They've written — or I've been interviewed in about two dozen foreign countries, including China and Australia and New Zealand and England and Canada and Israel and Russia, right, and a lot more.
The only three places I have not been on with this book. And, by the way, it's fine with me. I'm not looking to get on any particular show. It's fine. But to answer your question, Brent, the only three places I haven't been on are ABC news, NBC News, and CBS News. And that includes at 3:00 in the morning on their overnight show.
BOZELL: If that doesn't prove, give you the evidence of the arrogance of the liberal press, nothing does.
KEYES: Robert Scheer, that seems to me to be an indication that what Bernie is reporting in the book is true. I mean, if it weren't true, why aren't they willing to give the kind of attention — I mean, here you have a best-selling book. The public is responding to it. Why aren't the broadcast media types paying the same attention the public seems to be paying?
ROBERT SCHEER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, first of all, the question I'd ask Mr. Goldberg is why didn't he quit if he thought this was such a horrible network that he was working for? And why didn't he expose them?
But I think the premise here, let's take the presidents. Are you suggesting to me that Bill Clinton was treated more generously, more easily, by the “New York Times” and CBS than Ronald Reagan or George Bush? I think it's an absurd position. I think polling people about how they vote is not the operative question. The operative question is what do they report?
And the so-called liberal media, the “New York Times,” CBS, what have you, went out to destroy Bill Clinton. They went after him from day one. They didn't give him a moment's peace.
And, on the other hand, when Richard Nixon was involved with Watergate, the media didn't cover it until after the 1972 election. And they smashed George McGovern every which way. Now George Bush is getting off the hook on Enron, gentle, and a major scandal compared to Whitewater. So, I just don't see the evidence. It seems to me preposterous.
GOLDBERG: Well, it wouldn't be preposterous if you had read the book because I said — or if you had listened to Alan just a few minutes ago, because Alan said it is not about how they handle politics. You may live in a political world. But most of us out here in America don't.
It's how they cover the big social issues. You started out your answer by raising a question. If I thought it was so terrible, why didn't I leave? I've heard that question over and over again. And I swear to you, I don't understand it.
I was trying to make things better. Let's say they weren't talking about news bias but racial bias. And let's say they were walking around calling black people, should we say it? We all know what word I'm talking about. And I said for years and years in-house, hey, knock it off, this isn't right. And they ignored me for years and years. And then one day I wrote about it.
Am I supposed to quit? Why should I quit? I didn't do anything wrong. If anybody should quit, they should quit. I find that question, frankly...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: One second, gentlemen.
SCHEER: The issue is why didn't you go public? Why didn't you tell people this?
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: One word, please. Before we go on...
SCHEER: ... difference between politics and issues. Ronald Reagan was against abortion. Ronald Reagan was a social conservative. And the media treated him quite gently.
KEYES: Robert Scheer, hold on a second.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I'm going to get an idea because, first of all, I can't let you, Robert, get away with continually alluding to the media's treatment of the Reagan years as if they let somebody off the hook. During the course of Clinton years when we had all kinds of confirmed shenanigans going on, it took them forever before they finally got the point and started to acknowledge what was happening, right? And it had been going on for a long time before that.
SCHEER: No, no.
KEYES: No, no, you hold on a second. I remember — excuse me.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I remember during the course of the Reagan years...
SCHEER: That's just not true.
KEYES: ... that with nothing to go on in terms of Ed Meese and others, they continually talked about the sleaze factor and all these things when there was no fire to that smoke.
But before we go on, I want to hear what Richard Goldstein has to say in response. After all, we are dealing with a situation here where I think even the treatment of Bernie Goldberg shows that that bias is clear. Don't you see it, Richard? Isn't it clear?
RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, “THE VILLAGE VOICE”: You know, I can't believe I'm on a conservative talk show with, speaking mildly, a staunchly conservative host, one of maybe half a dozen shows like this on cable television. And I'm being told that there's a bias against conservatives.
If there were a bias against conservatives in the media, you would be a professor. The fact is — and I ask myself, why is it that you and Pat Buchanan and George Will and lots of other people are all on television? It's because there's a market for you. That's why you're on television.
I don't say that the media have a conservative bias because there's no talk show host as progressive as you are conservative. I say that there's a public for it. And if the media have a bias, it's like a heat seeking missile. They look for consensus. And there's a public consensus, that is the media's bias. And if there's a consensus that you belong on television, you'll be on television.
KEYES: That's nonsense.
GOLDSTEIN: Why are you here?
KEYES: That's nonsense.
GOLDSTEIN: Why are you here?
KEYES: Let me answer that. Let me answer that.
GOLDSTEIN: Why are you on the air if there's a bias against you?
KEYES: The interesting thing is that after many, many years, I've been involved in public life in one way or another for 30 years. For the last five or so maybe, there has been, especially in the television media, because of the emergence of cable with niche marketing where you can actually see the ability to appeal to a particular audiences...
GOLDSTEIN: What about George Will?
KEYES: ... Let me finish. You have the cable networks, who are opening up to an opportunity and starting to pursue it.
GOLDSTEIN: But what about George Will? He's on network television.
KEYES: If you look at the broadcast media, a real conservative with the kind of views, for instance, that I have on the abortion issue, the kind of views that I have on the issues of church and state...
GOLDSTEIN: Alan, would you call George Will a communist? Would you call him a socialist?
KEYES: You don't hear a single word. And indeed when folks like myself are out there doing things, they don't even bother to pick up on it. I'll give one example.
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDSTEIN: You're biting the hand that feeds you, and it feeds you very well, Alan.
KEYES: I'll give one example. I'll give one example. During the course of the 2000 season, there were several of the Democrat debates that were broadcast on broadcast television. Not a single one of the Republican debates was shown on broadcast network television. And you tell me there's not a bias? Where the conservatives appear, they don't look.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Go ahead.
BOZELL: When you rattle off all the names of the conservatives who are on television today or on the radio, the Rush Limbaughs, the Alan Keyes, whoever it might be, what do they all have in common? Number one, every single last one of them is labeled a conservative. And every single one of them happily accepts that.
And, number two, every single one of them is labeled a commentator. But if you're a liberal, A, you're objective. And, B, you're a reporter.
GOLDSTEIN: Mr. Bozell, there is no progressive talk show host on television.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Bernie Goldberg, I want to get a last word from Bernie. But I'll tell you something. The clear reason why you don't need it, if you have nearly the whole of that spectrum being filled up with culturally biased material where editorial choices are leaning in that direction and so forth and so on, and then you cite the few exceptions on cable or talk radio or something else, you've got everybody else to bias the media.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Bernie, what's your final thought, because we're coming down to the wire here?
GOLDBERG: My final thought.
GOLDSTEIN: Why are we coming down to the wire? He's been talking all this time.
GOLDBERG: My final thought, except for Brent and you, Alan, is that if these TV signals really do travel through space and someday wind up on a planet that's inhabited, they will think that there's no intelligent life on Earth. That's my final thought.
(LAUGHTER)
KEYES: Well, I think that it is remarkable, the lively discussion we've had obviously proves that, first of all, I think Bernie Goldberg's book has touched a nerve not only with the American public, but with those in the media themselves, who I think understand and know what we're talking about.
I know from experience. People often wondered, during my campaign, for instance, and they would ask me whether I thought the racial thing or things like that were a serious problem. And, sure, there are some things you have to encounter in that regard. But I'll tell you, the most serious liability that I had in terms of the media coverage and everything else was the fact that I was a strong, moral, pro-life conservative who had views, particularly on the social issues, that run counter to the dominant cultural bias that the media folks come from.
And I think that that's the problem here. It's not just a question of politics. It's a question of education and background and views and the fact that there are certain people like myself who stand diametrically opposed to the cultural instincts of the folks who, by and large, populate and dominate the American media. And that, I think, is the root cause of the problem. And Bernie Goldberg clearly gets at that problem, takes a complex view of the subject that then helps us to understand where it comes from.
Now, we're going to have to try this over again because we're going to have to take a look at what we do about it one of these days. We'll have to have you back, Bernie. Thank you for coming.
GOLDBERG: OK.
KEYES: Really appreciate it. And thank you all for participating today.
Next, we're going to take a look at the future of the Mideast and Iraq, and whether or not in present circumstances they're going to make the choice to talk or fight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes. As Lester Holt just reported, within the last hour, Israeli forces shot and killed the commander of Palestinian security forces for the southern Gaza Strip. Also today in New York City, Kofi Annan met with the Iraq foreign minister, and they were discussing the question of whether or not inspectors should be sent back into Iraq, dealing with the challenge of that country's possible access to weapons of mass destruction.
Obviously, things are heating up, coming to a boil in the Middle East, and as an envoy goes there from President G.W. Bush, the question that is on the table — are we going to see intensified conflict, or is a path going to open up that leads to negotiation, to discussion, to some way to resolve these questions without all-out war between the Arabs and the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Israelis, or an American invasion of Iraq. Do they talk or fight?
Joining us now to discuss what's happening in the Middle East is a retired three-star general and MSNBC analyst Bernard Trainor. He is a former U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant general and the co-author of the book “The General's War.” General Trainor is currently a senior fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations. Also with us, Charles Kupchan, a former National Security Council official during the Clinton administration. He is currently a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor of international relations at Georgetown University.
Welcome, gentlemen, to MAKING SENSE. Let me go first to you, general. In terms of what we are looking at now in the Arab-Israeli situation, are we on the verge of all-out war, and are we going to see that breaking out now, involving those two parties?
LT. GEN. BERNARD TRAINOR (RET), U.S. MARINE CORPS: Alan, I think they're already at war. That's a terrible situation out there. Neither side at this particular point is willing to blink or back off. This is the third trip out there that General Zinni has taken. We have expended a lot of efforts, not only this administration but previous administrations, trying to come to some sort of a negotiated solution.
At this particular point, both sides seem to be dug in and are going to see the entire process through to the end. And what the end would be, it seems to me at this judgment is that both sides are just going to become exhausted and will go through the cycle then of negotiations and, once again, probably at some future date, go back into conflict.
There's the hope, of course, that the trial balloon that was set up by Abdullah of Saudi Arabia might provide the basis for some sort of a solution, but, you know, that's a sort of thing of where you buy low and sell high.
KEYES: Now obviously, Ariel Sharon has made a judgment, at the moment, I think, that is looking to try using military force to alter that situation. We are also faced with a decision now, which people have talked about off and on with respect to U.S. policy in that region, particularly toward Iraq. Are we also going to see a decision taken by our president which goes toward the military option, and do you think that would make sense?
TRAINOR: It's a very difficult one. Let me tell you where I stand on this, Alan. The president has made the statement that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat to the United States in his own right with his development of weapons of mass destruction, close, perhaps to having nuclear weapons, but also as a repository and a supporter of the transnational terrorists that we're currently fighting and providing them weapons of mass destruction.
Now, if that is true, the president of the United States, who has the constitutional responsibility of protecting the United States, its people and its institutions, is faced with almost an imperative to act to protect ourselves from that particular threat. It would seem to me that if it is true, there is no choice but if Saddam Hussein will not back down, and there's no indication that he will, that we will have to take military action against them and probably the sooner the better.
KEYES: Charles Kupchan, looking at that situation, obviously there are those out there, Kofi Annan trying, others trying to revive some element that would go toward a less military solution, looking to revive the presence of inspectors, deal somehow with the concerns that the U.S. and others have with respect to Iraq. Do you think that the military option now has to trump those kinds of efforts?
TRAINOR: I think it would be too soon to say that the military option should trump diplomacy. I would rather see the two tracks move in parallel fashion. That is to say, we try to get the weapons inspectors back in, we try to use our diplomatic weight to get Saddam Hussein to open up his country, but realize full well that he may not, that he may continue to tool around and drag us along and let him in one day and kick him out the next.
And that's why I think at the same time, you start moving in the direction of a military option, an option that would remove Saddam Hussein from power. I think that has three main elements. One is to try to begin to rearm and give support to a domestic opposition inside Iraq, which is still very weak and fragmented. Secondly, to try to begin to get some help from our coalition allies, the Turks, the Brits, perhaps, and that's partly why I think we need to work the diplomatic angle because they're not with us at this point, and third, we start looking at the possibility of first limited military strikes against weapons depots, weapons factories, and then ultimately the prospect of a full scale U.S. invasion, which I think is something that would be very costly but necessary, because we don't see in the country a real set of allies that will help us do the ground war like we had in Afghanistan.
KEYES: Now, Bernard Trainor, I have a question that occurs to me as I listen to what Charles Kupchan is saying. Given that we have ascribed urgency to this situation after September 11, the prospect that this might feed somehow into the terrorist network and threaten us directly with weapons of mass destruction. Do you think we have the time to wait and pursue the kind of avenues that Charles is talking about?
TRAINOR: Well, if what the president believes is true, that we are in grave danger, I don't think we have the time to wait. I think it's the time to move. I think if we are going to move, I think it's very, very important to do two things: number one, inform the world and the Iraqis that we are serious and that Saddam Hussein's days are numbered, and we are going to take out Saddam Hussein and the Baathist regime and replace it with something else.
The second thing is to concentrate on the Iraqi military forces and tell them that it is in their interest, and in Iraq's interest to turn against the regime and use our military power to punish them not like we did in the Gulf War, we hit their infrastructure and caused a lot of civilian casualties, but focus on their military to convince them that, look, the jig is up, this guy is going to go. And it is in your interest to turn against the regime and make use of the Iraqi army as the instrument of deposition.
Now, we don't aim at the generals who are beholden to Saddam Hussein, but in my view, you focus your psychological operations on the brigade commanders and the battalion commanders, the so called young Turks who see in the interest of Iraq to turn against Saddam Hussein and support to Shias in the south and the Kurds in the north to assist in this entire effort, with the U.S. backing up with massive forces as an indication of our earnest.
KEYES: Now, I — last question to put to you, Charles Kupchan, 'cause listening to that, and you did talk about the possibility of kind of playing these things off against one another, being prepared to do something militarily, but at the end of the day, how can we keep the door open to chatter and expect some kind of cooperation if we're declaring that we're going to overthrow the guy?
I mean, don't we really have to make a clear choice here and commit ourselves in order to get an effective job done?
CHARLES KUPCHAN, FMR. NSC MEMBER: I think the key here is to neutralize his regime. If that means going in and getting rid of him, fine. If it means containing him, fine. I'm just a little less optimistic than Nick Trainor, that we can do all of what he describes in an easy way. I mean let's look at some of the numbers. They've got about 400,000 troops, 100,000 of which are very good Republican guard fighters. They didn't defect in the Gulf War, we had 500,000 troops on the ground. And they also only have about 50,000 opposition figures, and I am being charitable there, who will be fighting. So I think it's not going to be that easy to dislodge the regime, and get the army to defect.
And I also think we have to ask the big question, what comes next? Do we really want to go in and install a new regime through force and will that regime be any better? We installed the shah in Iran, for example. He was eventually thrown out and Iran became one of our arch-enemies. So I think the military option has to be out there to provide pressure, and we may need it. But I see it as a last resort, and not something we should go to in the very near future.
KEYES: Well, I want to thank both of you for joining us. Again, I think you all have clearly laid out some of the options that are available. And I think also given us an understanding of why this is something that the administration is wrestling with, I think with some difficulty as they try to come down this way and that.
We've talked about this before on the program, but I have to say that I think the point that Charles Kupchan raised at the end, and that General Trainor alluded to — how we move about this is not only a question of the military outcome, it's a question of being sure that we have done the groundwork to put in place a regime that isn't going to further destabilize the situation. And I think clearly from all that I have read and heard and the kind of folks we've had on the show here as well, you all can understand that this is a possibility. I don't think it's impossible. But I think it's going to require careful work, and I would have to say it's going to require a single minded commitment.
We do need to make up our minds clearly about what our objective is and move toward it consistently, because I think if we continue to act as if we can have it both ways, we will end up with a policy that is confused and divided against itself. And that in the past for America has meant clear disaster.
Well, next I want to hear what's on your mind. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA, 1-866-KEYES-USA. And later, we'll get to my outrage of the day where America seems to be funding, in a very negative kind of way, a better Chinese population. I'll explain myself during the outrage of the day. You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now let's find out what's on your mind. We'll start with Monique from Texas. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
MONIQUE: Hello, Mr. Keyes.
KEYES: Hi.
MONIQUE: What an honor to speak with you.
KEYES: My pleasure.
MONIQUE: May I also say I'm thrilled to see you on the air. I was really astonished in the first place that MSNBC negotiated a show for you, considering I feel is their far left bias and especially after their treatment of you during the presidential race. I was wondering if you could comment on that and also will I ever get a chance to vote for you again?
KEYES: Well, I don't know what the future might hold in many respects, certainly not in that one. I think that I have been very pleased that we were able to put together something that allows us to try to bring quality programming to folks on MSNBC that will discuss things from a point of view that I think has integrity. And I'm grateful for the opportunity and we're going to work hard to make sure we make it a success. So I thank you for that thought.
Let's go to Joe from Pennsylvania. Joe, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JOE: Hi, Alan. I just want to say that the Clinton years are called by the media years of prosperity and progress, but then the Reagan years looking back are labeled Reagonomics, tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor. What's your response to that so-called journalist objectivity?
KEYES: Well, I think it's clear that there is a lens through which they see things. It was one the reasons that I pointed out that during the Clinton years, it took forever, it was like pulling teeth, to get them to finally look at all the junk that was going on. And yet, with very little to go on, they labeled the Reagan administration close to the beginning as sleazy and the sleaze factor and could never get enough of that. I thought it was fascinating, that contrast which was clear.
Let's go to John from Virginia. John, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
JOHN: Thank you, Alan. You have an excellent program and it's refreshing and that's the key. I'm going to go back a little ways. Remember when Rush Limbaugh first came on TV, I was so shocked. I was so conditioned to see all liberals on there that my thought was, I can't believe they let him on the air. And now it's — this is a relatively new thing. And I want to point out too, notice how the liberals had to talk over you guys? They just had to talk and talk and keep you quiet.
KEYES: Well, you know, I think that we are seeing some changes, mainly because of the reaction of the public. But this is an issue we're going to get back to, you bet. I think it was a fascinating discussion. We'll get back to it again. Thanks for your feedback.
Next, my outrage of the day. China's policy and our support for it. And if you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter. Log on to our Web site, KEYES.MSNBC.COM. Each day in your mailbox, you'll get show topics, my weekly column and links to my favorite articles of the day.
I'll be right back with my outrage of the day. You stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now my outrage of the day. I received a report today that the Centers for Disease Control is offering a $1 million to the Beijing University Health Science Center to carry out eugenics research in China. The grant establishes “a cooperative agreement between the People's Republic and the United States for the study of birth defects and other reproductive and developmental outcomes in china.”
Now that sounds like a wonderful goal to promote optimal birth rates and outcomes in China and so forth. The truth is that the Chinese particularly target ethnic minorities with a program that actually claims that they find higher rates of cretins, idiots, imbeciles among minority populations and, therefore, sterilize them in larger numbers. They have as their objective not improving the health, but improving the quality of the Chinese population, meaning they're looking for the “superman”, just the way the Nazis did. Why would we want to put our money behind that kind of a moral outrage?
That's my sense of it. Lester Holt is up next. We'll see you on Monday.