(5th Cir.1994), cert. denied sub nom. Rodriguez v. United States, 513 U.S. 1156, 115 S.Ct. 1113, 130 L. Ed.2d 1077 (1995), is similar. After instances of possible exposure to inherently prejudicial publicity had been brought to its attention, the court conducted a collective voir dire. The negative response received on each occasion disclosed that jury exposure did not occur and supported the court’s discretionary decision that individual voir dire was unnecessary. The Bermea court wrote: “We have found nothing in our cases to support a rule that midtrial publicity requires individual voir dire even after the district judge has made a collective inquiry to the jury and received no positive response.” Id. at 1560; see also United States v. Tolliver, 61 F.3d 1189, 1204 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In Bey I, the court was at pains to point out
holding that preservation of error in the trial court is not necessary as to lack of standing holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim holding that a twostep inquiry is necessary to assess whether individualized voir dire is necessary because of midtrial publicity concerning the nature of the media coverage and its prominence holding that it is not necessary to ascertain whether a plan is tax qualified but only that it is covered by erisa