EVEN AN ATTEMPT TO SET RECORD STRAIGHT IS SKEWED

There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more than convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason.

The old argument that the networks and other "media elites" have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.

Which brings us to a recent "Reality Check" on the CBS Evening News, reported by Eric Engberg, a longtime friend. His subject was Steve Forbes's flat tax. It's not just Democrats and some Republican presidential candidates who don't like the flat tax -- it's also a lot of big-time reporters. The flat tax rubs them the wrong way. Which is fair enough -- until their bias makes its way into their reporting. And Mr. Engberg's report set new standards for bias.

He starts out saying: "Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir, good for everything that ails us." Sure, the words "scheme" and "elixir" are loaded, conjuring up images of Doctor Feelgood selling worthless junk out of the back of his wagon. But this is nothing more than a prelude -- warm-up material to get us into the right frame of mind.

The report shows Mr. Forbes saying the U.S. economy can grow twice as fast is we remove "obstacles, starting with the tax code." Mr. Forbes may be right or wrong about this, so Mr. Engberg lets us know which it is. "Time out!" he shouts in his signature style. "Economists say nothing like that has ever actually happened."

He then introduces us to William Gale of the Brookings Institution, who says: "It doesn't seem plausible to think that we're going to have a whole new economy or economic Renaissance Age due to tax reform."

CBS News instructs its reporters and producers to identify people in a way that will help the audience understand any political bias they might have. We are told, for example, to identify the Heritage Foundation as a "conservative think tank." I have done this on more than one occasion myself. It's a good policy.

But where was the identification of the Brookings Institution as a "liberal think tank"? Might that influence Mr. Gale's take on the flat tax? Instead, Mr. Gale was presented to America simply as an expert with no tax ax to grind.

Mr. Engberg then shows Mr. Forbes saying: "A flat tax would enable this economy to grow. That would mean more revenues for Washington." To this, Mr. Engberg tells the audience: "That was called supply-side economics under President Reagan: Less taxes equal more revenue. It didn't work out that way." Immediately after this we hear Mr. Engberg ask this question of Mr. Gale: "Is it fair to say the last time we tried something like this, we ended up with those hideous deficits?" To which Gale obediently replies, "It's perfectly fair to say that."

Mr. Engberg continues: "And if we try it again, your fear is ... ?" And Mr. Gale replies: "... that we end up with the same problem again."

But haven't other experts argued that we wound up with "hideous deficits" not because of the tax cut but because of increased spending? And to the best of my knowledge, neither Mr. Forbes nor any other flat-tax proponent is suggesting we increase spending.

(Part of the problem is that most reporters and editors -- television and print -- are total dunces when it comes to the economy. Most don't now a capital gain from a mutual fund. This, as much as bias, in some cases leads to the kind of reporting we see on the flat tax and a lot of other economic issues.)

One thing to remember about network news is that it steals just about everything from print. So if the New York Times is against the flat tax, the networks can't and won't be far behind.

Mr. Engberg concludes his piece a la David Letterman by saying that "Forbes's No. 1 Wackiest Flat Tax Promise" is the candidate's belief that it would give parent's "more time to spend with their children and each other."

Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton's health care plan "wacky"? Can you imagine any editor allowing it?

Finally, Mr. Engberg says: "The fact remains: The flat tax is a giant, untested theory. One economist suggested, before we put it in, we should test it out someplace -- like Albania."

"Reality Check" suggests the viewers are going to get the facts. And then they can make up their mind. As Mr. Engberg might put it: "Time out!" You'd have a better chance of getting the facts someplace else -- like Albania.

Bernard Goldberg is a correspondent with CBS News. This is reprinted from The Wall Street Journal.