sacred text. i think in sort of, again, not in sort of the to and fro of politics, but how the press portrayed it. again, i liked a lot of things about that document. i m not totally sorry the press played it that way. but i think you see that happening again and again. there is sort of a desire for, there is a desire for a figure like michael bloomberg to sort of play this sort of postpartisan role, but that then intersects with the press social issues. when a figure like bloomberg is mixing it up on guns, he gets to be a bipartisan, postpartisan figure and the press gets to sort of congratulate itself for being the history of vanguard. that is hard for me to get my mind around. let me turn to the column you wrote in new york times and picked up something you wrote for daily beast. i said gun control was an important issue and the press has to be leading the conversation on this and i
thanks for having me. the gun control debate, the background check legislation that went down in the senate, you see that as a classic example of media bias, media rooting for certain outcomes. is that fair? i think it s a little more complicated than that. i think it s a situation where the press likes to feel like they re in the vanguard of history on certain issues, right? those are usually social issues and issues like gun control, gay marriage and so on. i think those are the places where, you know, a lot of people in the press walk a very fine line between sort of trying to report nucherally and also trying to, you know, be on the winning side and on social issues i think they tend to fall off that tight rope a little bit. to the point of unfairness sometimes. yes, to the point of unfairness quite a bit. for example, senators joe manchin and pat toumy and there was so much attention to that legislation and the day after it