Still Think the Press Is Unbiased?

Consider the complete pass former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger received from the media and imagine if Condi Rice had stolen 9/11 documents from the National Archives.

Or, better yet, compare the coverage when a low-level bureaucrat did something far less heinous:

With the release of an internal investigation last week, we now know that former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger not only knowingly flouted laws for handling classified documents, but he also went to incredible lengths to cover his tracks and thwart investigators.

While Berger's "punishment" was a pittance of a fine, former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin has been financially ruined and sentenced to 12 and a half years for passing along far less-classified information to unauthorized third parties.



National Security Adviser Sandy Berger briefs reporters at the White House in this Aug 21, 1998 file photo. Berger removed classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 and hid them under a construction trailer, the Archives inspector general reported Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2006. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) Unfortunately, disproportionate justice is inherent to the legal system. The written playbook might be the same for various cases, but different judges and different dynamics can lead to dramatically disparate results.

But what excuse is there for the wildly different media coverage of the two cases, both of which came to public attention in the summer of 2004?

Given the nature of each man's actions and the starkly different status each enjoyed in the public eye, the media actually was justified in providing dissimilar coverage. Only the press got it exactly wrong.