Network displays ABCs of journalistic bias

It’s been obvious for years that John Stossel is the dictionary definition of smug. But he’s never been stupid. Nor has he seemed to be purposely unethical. That is until Friday night’s broadcast of ABC’s news show “20/20.” What Stossel did on that show, during what was portrayed as his “give me a break” commentary on trial lawyers, was launch a pointedly political attack on Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards.

Edwards’ crime? He’s a career lawyer, Stossel said, one who has won millions of dollars in settlements for his clients in medical malpractice lawsuits. Stossel’s view: “(T)he fearful atmosphere that these kinds of lawsuits create has far-reaching consequences.” His equation is simple: the more malpractice suits there are, the higher medical insurance there is. And those costs end up getting passed on to the public. He even quoted a doctor who said of his colleagues that “Everybody walks in mortal fear of being sued.”

Stossel downplays the many instances in which such malpractice suits are justified, saying, “Clearly, there are bad and careless doctors, but in certain specialties most doctors are being sued.” (That’s his emphasis.) He even offers statistics that say “76 percent of American obstetricians have been sued.” And he quotes another lawyer (not Edwards) who says, “Well, you know … that’s why they have insurance.”

Right. Look, lawyers are trained to be as tough as they can be on behalf of their clients. That’s the way the system works. And those who take on big corporations need to be especially tough because, as the movies have told us over the years, big corporations are represented not just by tough attorneys but by teams of tough attorneys. Remember “The Verdict,” “Erin Brockovich,” “A Civil Action” and “The Insider” ? (Can you say “tobacco industry”?) But lawyers are taught ethics, just as journalists such as Stossel supposedly are. And the good ones do their best to live up to those ethics. As with all trades, though, there are those who ignore the rules.

But unethical action wasn’t really the point of Stossel’s tirade on Friday. He didn’t say anything new, anything that hasn’t been written about again and again. Instead, he merely used a long-standing resentment of lawyers to smear Edwards, a man running for political office, as someone who has taken advantage of a system to the ultimate disadvantage of us all.

But ask yourself this: If your child dies during a routine operation, who are you going to call? The Better Business Bureau ? If you’re arrested on suspicion of having done something – these days it could be any thing – wrong, who are you going to call? Your therapist? And if Stossel ever gets sued for defamation, who do you think he’s going to call? Not his family physician, that’s for sure.

He’ll be begging to have a litigator as good as Edwards. And when he’s sitting there in his lawyer’s office, listening to his legal options, you can bet that he won’t be wearing that trademark smug smile of his.

Then again, maybe he will. ABC has deep pockets and can certainly afford the best.