LOL at "inadvertently."

Moran was always among the most brazen of the left-wing spinners at ABC, only topped by Stephanopolous, and Gay Model David Muir, and... well a lot of them, really. Let's just say a lot of ABC "talent" ties for second place.

He got fired when his brazen partisanship could not be denied any longer. He got on to Twitter, fortified, most believe, with a disinhibitory dose of alcohol, and proclaimed key Trump advisor Stephen Miller a Nazi.

He's in a snit over his firing, and trying to attract eyeballs to his Substack, now that he's unemployed. So he's now willing to throw ABC "News" under the bus for attention.

But not all the way. He still insists that the "News" division led by Clinton spokesman and spinner George Stephanolpolous is just "inadvertently" biased.

Let's talk about bias. I worked at ABC News for almost 28 years, and I'm proud to say that. A lot of good people do a lot of really good work there, and they try hard to get the story right. There were many days over the years when I'd watch a colleague at work, on-camera or behind the scenes, and I'd think: That's how you do this. That is how you do a story that will really help people understand the truth of what's happening in our country and beyond.

But: Were we biased? Yes. Almost inadvertently, I'd say. ABC News has the same problem so many leading cultural institutions do in America: A lack of viewpoint diversity.

When I joined ABC News in 1997, it was basically run by white men. (I have nothing against white men; I am one.) That management structure lasted for a long time, way too long. But over the last decade or so, the company made an effort to hire and promote journalists from a much wider diversity of backgrounds and life experiences. That changed ABC News, for the better: changed our conversations, changed our perceptions of stories and events in the country and around the world, changed our coverage. For me, the job got a lot more interesting, and more fun.

But there was one way ABC did not change and did not diversify. It is no secret.

I have made this point a thousand times: Throughout the 80s and 90s and 2000s, left-wing identity politics group would march on up to network news offices and proclaim they were biased against various identity politics groups protected by the left.

The news is biased against women. The networks respond by hiring many female anchors and reporters and scheduling many "women's issue" stories (and non-stories) during the week's "news."

The news is biased against blacks. The networks respond by hiring many black anchors and reporters, and, crucially, agreeing to no longer report the races of criminals when they're black. And ultimately to stop reporting on crime at all. (Except, of course, for racial hoaxes and crimes committed against minorities by whites or, and I still enjoy this, "White Hispanics.")

The news is biased against Muslims. And gays.

And ditto, and ditto.

There are only a couple of groups that the networks insist they have no bias at all against and therefore no need to change or even tweak anything at all:

• Conservatives

• Traditionalist Christians

When those groups complain they are seriously underrepresented in the news business and slandered by liberal "journalists," the networks all responded the same way:

Fuck you, snowflakes, we're not biased and even if we are, fuck you twice, you'll just have to live with it.

I think it's pretty clear those are the groups the leftwing media is actually biased against. The proof is their utter unwillingness to take complaints from those groups with even an atom of interest, while giving away identity-politics concessions to literally every other group with a grievance.

There are hardly any people who supported Donald Trump at ABC News--or the other corporate/legacy/mainstream news networks. And this is bound to impact coverage, not so much out of malevolent bias (that's the cartoon version peddled by Trump, Brendan Carr and online MAGA), but more out of what is a kind of deafness.

The old news divisions don't hear many of the voices of the country, because those voices aren't in the newsroom. Yes, news teams go out with a microphone and a camera and accost people at Trump rallies; but to me that often comes off as weirdly anthropological and inaccurate, kind of like trying to understand nature by visiting a zoo. You don't really see a tiger at the zoo, just a version of a tiger.

None of this is inadvertent. It's been corporate news policy for decades: All groups are entitled to have a seat at the news table and have their concerns heard, except for the two groups the communists actually despise with genocidal passion, conservatives and Christians.