Rating: 
Summary: Message Deserves a Better Messenger
Review: First, let me say that _Arrogance_ is a step up from Goldberg's earlier book, _Bias_. _Bias_ suffered from being an essay padded out to book length, and Goldberg's transparent and rather whiny anger at Dan Rather. Despite the fact that I agreed with Goldberg's thesis, the presentation was offputting._Arrogance_ finds Goldberg in a more restrained mood. He has laid off the personal attacks, and limits himself to using the F-word only in quotations. He still strains to be cute in places: for instance when he litters his section on Andy Rooney with "Did ya ever notice..." constructions. Goldberg's thesis in both _Arrogance_ and _Bias_ is that the national media is biased liberal not as a choice so much as an unconscious reflection of the world in which big-media stars live. He offers a few suggestions to change this ossified culture in _Arrogance_, but I feel they have very little chance of being implemented. My suggestion is that if you are interested in this topic, you first read Harry Stein's _How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy : (and Found Inner Peace)_ first. This is a much better book, genuinely funny as well as thoughtful, and, I'm afraid, is better than either of Goldberg's books.
Rating: 
Summary: The title should be Absolute Arrogance
Review: This work validates my sense of the American Media base. I simply could not accept that the majority could hate its own country as much as the media would have me believe. The main stream democrats that I know (including high ranking democrats) simply do not side with the media's view of liberals and the liberal left. It is as though the media has formed its own political party with a strongly separate agenda from both the republican party and the majority of democrats. It is truly scary when I consider the powerful blows the media lands to influence its viewers or readers. It almost seems there should be some sort of objective mechanism in place to verify the claims of the media before they are hoisted on the public.
Rating:
Summary: Confirms Everything I Already Knew About The Liberal Media
Review: Bernie Goldberg's book already confirms everything I knew about the liberal media. But what he did is give us all a behind-the-scenes look at the left and why they want to slant certain stories to their liking and just how far they will go to do it. I never take the Network News at their word and now I am ten-times more skeptical that anything they say is the truth. Kudos to Bernie Goldberg for an excellent book that needed to be written.
Rating:
Summary: Just finished reading it last night.
Review: This is a very good book. His writing style leaves something to be desired, but the content of the book makes up for it.
As stated in "Bias" it is not so much what the elite media reports, it is mostly what they DO NOT report, and the overwhelmingly biased way they present the news.
Rating:
Summary: Dan Rather and Eason Jordan............
Review: are just two examples of what Goldberg is talking about. They are only the tip of the iceberg. The media is polluted with left-wingers; there are few true liberals. As time goes on, Goldberg will be further vindicated. It's time to clean up the media and Hollywood right along with them.
Rating:
Summary: An Important Work From A True Insider
Review: Although I enjoyed Goldberg's earlier "Bias," I actually think that this is the stronger book. Goldberg is not a conservative firebrand, in fact he is philosophically more libertarian and describes himself as an old fashioned liberal, a point that most authors critical of the press can't honestly make. His advantage is being able to give first-hand testimony to actions of others in the media, and while this book was written before the enormous faux pas of "Rathergate" (in which Dan Rather used suspect sources prior to the 2004 election in an attempt to smear President Bush, which not only backfired, but further denuded the network media of credibility, not to mention possibly costing him his job) I have no doubt that Goldberg would be completely unsurprised by those events.
The book is not simply a rehash of "Bias," but goes further to the heart of big media bias, with many insightful examples of skewed reporting in the post-9/11 world, such as the mandate by Reuters that reporters not use the term "terrorist" to describe the 9/11 perpetrators (and other terrorists) evidently on the grounds that it is inflammatory and portrays them in a negative light (well, duh), demonstrating that liberal bias in the media is not restricted to the US. He also details the newest line of nonsense from the big media wonks, that there is actually a right wing bias in the media. As ridiculous as that premise sounds, it has recently been said many times, mostly since Fox news has become more popular. Goldberg does acknowledge some right wing bias at Fox, and although some have critiqued the book for not pursuing that lead further, I believe he handled it well inasmuch as conservative bias is not a central part of his thesis, and also because the Fox news audience is dwarfed by network news audiences.
The book isn't perfect, and occasionally I detect a bit of a "noble martyr" tone in the book (even though that's true, modesty goes a long way) though it doesn't detract overall from the material presented. I highly recommend this book as well as "Bias" to obtain an inside view of the slanting of the news. While imperfect, both books are vital and worthy of being read by anyone who claims to care about bias in the media.
Rating: 
Summary: Enlightened
Review: Was hard to put down, enjoyed almost every minute. The media has slowly made it's way to the point it's at now, and the people are fed up with it. Was in a way unexpected hearing this voice coming out of the CBS world. This is an insiders witness to the elite media. Smooth read. Contains interveiw with Bob Costas. Not just for Conservatives!
Rating:
Summary: Why can't they give us just the facts?
Review: In this very timely sequel to his previous book Bias Bernard Goldberg picks up where he left off, describing some of the reaction and fallout to his earlier book. As you would suspect, there was a lot of bias involved there too. Bernard Goldberg knows the TV news business like no outsider can. As a former news correspondent for CBS News for many years he can speak with great authority about the issue of liberal bias. Why did the news coverage of the refusal of the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay scout leaders suddenly end? What didn't the news industry tell the public about the sex scandals concerning Roman Catholic priests taking indecent liberties with young people? What really happened when the little black girl escaped last year from her kidnappers? What part of the story was left out when a couple of college students apprehended a deranged student who went on a rampage on their school campus resulting in several deaths and injuries? How exactly are racial issues handled by the news coverage of sports? What does NBC's Tim Russert have to say about media bias? These are examples of the kinds of material that Mr. Goldberg uses as he attempts to illustrate in great detail the pervasiveness of liberal bias in the news business and to describe the ways that political correctness affects the way news is currently covered and presented to the public. He then goes on to present some proposals for how to address this issue. He describes the pervasive tendency for people in the news business to seek refuge in denial. What liberal bias? Everybody knows that that is just another right wing canard, etc. He describes how threatened Big Media feels by the increasing success of Fox News and conservative radio, to the point where Big Media executives often now make the claim that there is actually a RIGHT WING bias in news reporting, and that THIS is the greatest problem for the future of the news industry. Well, they are certainly correct that this development is a threat to THEIR future. Bernard Goldberg is perhaps one of the most important whistleblowers of our time. For those of you who really DO want the facts this book is a good place to start looking for them.
Rating: 
Summary: Not very convincing
Review: "Liberal elite" seems to be the new straw man of the neo-cons, but I don't see any strong evidence of it. Many newscasters come from the midwest, like Tom Brokaw, and Fox News seems to be an arm of the Republican Party. Goldberg has not convinced me that this elitism is why the Democrats lost the election (and not by a landslide; this is hardly the mandate that Bush seems to think it is ... come to think of it, that is really arrogance). If we had had a better candidate, if we had been more effective in getting the youth vote out, etc., the Dems could have won this race. To say that the liberals do not understand the "common man" (and rich, pampered George Bush does?) is nonsense. Clinton had a real empathy with people (granted, he was more middle of the road).
The Dems can win elections without the South (which became Republican in reaction to Pres. Kennedy and Johnson's advocacy of civil rights)and without the Religious Right. To try to pander to them, as the Republicans do, is the wrong way to go. This is still the party of Roosevelt, and we have the same goals and visions. Four more years of the Republicans ought to prove to America that the Bush administration does not know what it is doing and refuses to admit its mistakes. That is ARROGANCE.
Rating:
Summary: A very mixed bag.
Review: If one were to Google the quote referenced near the end of this book, that predicting is very difficult, especially about the future, one would quickly learn that, as I had thought, Neils Bohr said it, not Yogi Berra, as the author states (yes, it sounds like Yogi, but a good journalist would research his quotes before putting them in his book). Perhaps this is why Mr. Goldberg does not attribute too many of his quotes!
I do think that Mr. Goldberg makes some excellent points in this book, and, as a loyal reader of the New Yorker (which apparently automatically identifies me as a liberal), I accept and agree with some of his specific criticism of the elite media, which, in a nutshell, is that their attitudes towards particular issues influences how those issues are covered. However, his case is considerably weakened by his presentation. For one thing, while he has the gumption (which I give him credit for) to personally name names (particularly Dan Rather and some other CBS personnel) in discussing the attitudes of his past colleagues, he also makes many statements about how those colleagues despise and look down on their day to day viewers and what motivates them to watch the news. Very fascinating, but the only problem here is, he does NOT name names! Who says these things? Dan? The producers? The president of the company? This would have been interesting! While the author makes occasional references to specific quotes and attitudes, the book mostly repeats very general and broad statements about the media, with little direct attribution. More specifics and deeper examination of specific topics would have made for a much stronger case.
Another problem with the book is that, while the author admits that there are people and media on the right (Fox, for example?) who he does not agree with either, these statements are always made in passing, and never followed up on. I know, his subject is the media elites on the left, but this would have been a much more interesting book (albeit one that would have been harder to market to a certain audience) if it had examined media bias on both the left and the right, instead of just contributing to that whole media bias cavalcade without a hint of fairness and thoughtful consideration of all the mainstream media. Mr. Goldberg strikes me as someone who would admit, if pinned down, that Fox News and objectivity rarely meet in the same room, so why not present a fair and balanced journalistic examination of that bias? It would have strengthened his fairly weak case against those he does attack here.
Finally, while Mr. Goldberg's style is easy going and readable, it is also not particularly packed with information. He makes a point and spends two pages padding it out with questions and indignation. If one has read his first book, BIAS, as I have, his approach starts to become repetitious after a while, and I found myself scanning over the constant refrains. He finishes the book by listing Twelve Steps to changing the media bias landscape, and a serious, thoughtful list here would have been useful. Instead it reads like one more chance to bash those he attacks, and his ideas are simplistic and snide. A much (MUCH!) better, if drier, analysis of how journalists need to improve their approach to stories may be found in THE ELEMENTS OF JOURNALISM by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel. I would heartily recommend that you read that much more balanced and thoughtful book than starting with this one.
|
