Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite

Rating:
Summary: Astonishing
Review: In his bestselling book "Bias", Bernard Goldberg catalogued the overt liberal bias infesting the major news networks in America. Now, his bestselling book "Arrogance" catalogues the outright contempt and condescension he encountered from the media elites he criticized. His account is simply astonishing in nature.

Rather than make a concerted effort to address an obvious problem within their ranks, the major newspapers and news networks in America impugn the reputations of, fire, and outright ignore those who buck the system. In an industry where employees take pride in their willingness to shake the status quo, to uncover "the big story" - journalists are ignoring one of the biggest stories in American history - a blatant media bias within their own ranks.

Now despite what some may say, Goldberg does not assert that media bias is the outcome of some grand conspiracy. Instead, it is the natural state of being for a clique of elite media journalists who all reside in the same neighborhoods, walk the same halls at work, attend the same cocktail parties, and live within the same isolated "media-sphere". What we have is an enormous case of "group think" at work. Although quite unlike the widget industry, the media's business is truth, and Goldberg (as well as millions of American viewers) are convinced the media is selling an inferior product. That's why CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and others are watching their ratings plummet, while FoxNews (the "fair and balanced" network) is climbing to new ratings highs every month.

Throughout the book, Goldberg recounts a number of personal instances where bias or outright ignorance permeated the media community. The best part of "Arrogance" is the conclusion, where the author lays out a "Twelve Step program" (much like one for a recovering alcoholic) that will enable the media to rid itself of its liberal bias once and for all. Goldberg suggests intellectual and political diversity be implemented into hiring practices alongside the longstanding policies of racial and gender diversity. My favorite suggestion of all is to move the news headquarters of CBS, NBC, or ABC to one of these five locations:

1. Tupelo, Mississippi
2. Mitchell, South Dakota
3. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
4. Indianapolis, Indiana
5. Laughlin, Nevada

I can just see the media elite cringe! Maybe one day I'll own a major news network. When I do, the first person I'll hire is Bernard Goldberg. But for now, I'll simply suggest that you read his book.

Britt Gillette
Author of "The Dittohead Guide To Adult Beverages"

Rating:
Summary: Arrogance: Rescuing America From the Media Elite
Review: In the best-selling Bias, Goldberg decried the way U.S. media slant the news. Here, he reputedly names names and offers solutions. At least he has an insider's perspective: he was a CBS correspondent for nearly 30 years.

Rating:
Summary: Relativism Precludes Bias; Nonetheless Arrogance Abounds!
Review: The book has some value, but it raises some troubling issues as well.

It's tempting to consider ourselves Custodians of Enlightenment. This is the essence of arrogance, to esteem our own thoughts and determinations above those of others. Plato, Thomas Jefferson and various other politico-philosophers have wrestled with such questions as relativism (Plato's allegory of the Cave) of equity in governance. It may be argued that there is no subjective reality. Those lofty ideals such as fairness, balance, honesty and intelligence are greatly polluted by the minds of the listeners.

Liberalism and conservatism are labels by their very nature. Whether we are ascribed such by ourselves or others is irrelevant to the course of human events. Our thoughts and actions have only one absolute measure of merit--history. But our planet with its amalgam dynamically changing and interacting societies is changing so very quickly. Such a foment of unprecedented changes means that history can give precious few examples to guide us.

Debating biases is surely the devil's business--and the pastime of the small minded. Surely every single person's speech, actions and values emphasizes certain matters, ignoring others. This is based upon his or her personality, intellect, experience, and a combination of social, philosophical, political, economic and religious understanding. That some of these combinations are labeled liberal and others conservative demonstrates shallowness in the thinking of the listeners. Society is comprised of individuals. An objective bias exists whenever media is dominated by people differing too greatly from societal norms. Are these people arrogant? Only inasmuch as any of us hold strongly to our views. Folly exists principally in accepting anyone else's thinking uncritically.

News is simply well informed opinion. It is the reporter or researcher's job to explore as many sources as possible. But some sources will attract some people. Likewise, some jobs tend to attract certain people. Journalism attracts those who display some combination of the following: a need for recognition, a desire to investigate matters deeply, a highly developed sense of self-importance and a strong sense of personal intellectual ability. Other people with the same features may be attracted to law or law enforcement, crime, politics and academia. People with a strong commitment to the status quo will gravitate toward legal realms (judiciary/lawyers, detectives, government intelligence, etc.) Conversely, those with a neutral or negative experience of the status quo gravitate toward areas in which they can subvert the dominant paradigm such as academic research, investigative journalist, computer hacker or a terrorist.

In short, I clearly see the dispositions to certain lines of thinking within the media. It's the job of the citizenry to be sufficiently well-informed and broadly educated to distill fact from fantasy. When fantasy dominates fact, the media becomes increasingly irrelevant. This is precisely where we find ourselves today, perhaps ten years after the full-force of the internet has forever altered the landscape.

We may, like so many lemmings, seek those most like us, becoming part of that herd. Alternately, we may endeavor to seek a variety of opinions and perspectives. That the term liberal is associated with the latter is idiocy. It bespeaks a certain imprecision of language and a general misunderstanding of our best and highest roles. Clearly the herding instinct is both easier and more comfortable. But seeking alternative thinking is vital to the proper functioning of nations, societies and our global economy. Whenever any one perspective utterly discredits another, the value of individuals is degraded and warfare (at some level) ensues.

Accordingly religious, economic, social or political extremism is inherently bellicose. It must be guarded against without sacrificing our core values. Ultimately, then, this is the crux of the issue for each of us: finding meaning in our own lives without impeding others' search for meaning in their lives. This may sound simple, but it is singularly problematic. Ostensibly unifying journalism under the umbrella of some conception of liberalism is just ludicrous. Much of the problem lies not in our journalists, but in us.

Rating:
Summary: Misguided Homage
Review: Having read Bernard Goldberg's book, "Bias," I found his latest, "Arrogance" to be a logical and informative sequel.

The issue I have with "Arrogance" is in its introduction wherein the author pays misguided (in my view) homage to, ironically, two liberals - Ralph Nader and Walter Cronkite. One perk that goes with being on this planet as many years as I have is that the history surrounding these two individuals is something I lived and witnessed. For example, Nader's book, "Unsafe at any Speed," focused on a car, when it should have zeroed in on those drivers who shouldn't have been allowed a tricycle. The title should have been, "Unsafe in any Car." His noblesse oblige cause - in his own sanctimonious, self-righteous mind - was to save the world from everything from cars he deemed unsafe to unhealthy eating habits - like the time, early in his "career" when he was reportedly having lunch at a restaurant in Princeton, NJ. Seated nearby was a total stranger who made the mistake of using refined sugar in view of know-it-all Nader. Nader thus began to loudly berate and embarrass this poor soul in front of other patrons, going on about the ill effects of refined sugar.

Refined sugar aside, ask yourselves this question, vis-à-vis Nader's contributions to our society - which included mandated flexible hood ornaments on cars, lest some pedestrian be impaled - do you now feel safer on the nation's highways.

As for Walter Cronkite, he always was and remains a self-centered buffoon who should have retired his tongue when he retired from the Networks. If you were to put Cronkite on the liberal end of a see-saw, and holier-than-thou Jerry Falwell on the opposite end, the beam would be perfectly balanced on its fulcrum. Bottom line- two windbags at opposite end of a social spectrum, neither one of whom is worth the time of any thinking person.

The point being, the author, in my view, contaminated his work with his misguided tribute to a couple of blowhard empty suits.

Rating:
Summary: Arrogance: Rescuing America From the Media Elite
Review: I loved this book, so enlightening about how the media really works, which is both deceitful and disgusting. This book will be required-summer reading for my teenage son before he heads off to college this Fall.

Rating:
Summary: Just another guy who gave it 1 star to bring down the rating
Review: If you truly wish to learn what the media elite is and what is factual news, watch FOX News Channel for Bias News and CNN for semi unbiased news, and C-SPAN for fair news.

Rating:
Summary: The 'Smoking Gun'
Review: If, as some claim, Bernard Goldberg's assertions of a liberal bias in the media are inaccurate, why would not the offended anchormen, et al, invite him on their programs and expose his misrepresentations. The obvious answer--'The Smoking Gun'--is, obviously, that those of whom he writes are offended not by his assertions, but by the fact that he--an 'insider'--had the courage to tell the truth, which they apparently consider a betrayal of them and their 'balanced reporting.'

Rating:
Summary: Bias Part II: This Time It's Personal!
Review: Long ago, William F. Buckley asserted that liberals claim to want to give an airing to "other views", but are then shocked and appalled that there _are_ other views. More recently, Jonah Goldberg said that the word "conservative" in the news media has contracted to simply mean the position you the reader are meant to disapprove of. Both quotes could serve as epigraphs for _Arrogance_.

This book is billed as a prescription for remedies of liberal media bias. It is not. It is a second helping of exposure of journalistic malfeasance on the part of the New York Times and the big three networks. What pointers Goldberg does offer come toward the end, and even then are merely hooks upon which to hang more indictments. It's clear that the publishers, who may be liberal themselves but aren't allergic to the profits a sequel to a conservative bestseller would bring, wanted Goldberg to serve up lots more of the same. In one of her books Ann Coulter noted how reviewers had for years and years referred to popular conservative books as "surprise bestsellers." A surprise to who? Not to Warner Books anymore, not with the bills to pay on that Time-Warner merger with AOL!

To liberals, Bernard Goldberg may be a traitor, but the attempts by some of them to paint him as a hack or a phony have fallen flat. You have to be very good to stay on at the the major networks for nearly thirty years, as Goldberg did. The efforts to smear him merely give more credence to his charge of herd mentality.

It's an important distinction that Goldberg insists on: there is no secret liberal media NKVD, keeping everyone in line. Rather, it's a case of "birds of a feather flock together". Regardless of how educated or smart or possessed of goodwill people may be, they are still taken aback, at least momentarily, if it slips out that one of their number does not share their worldview. Now replace the set of educated, smart people of goodwill with self-impressed, arrogant products of politically correct Blue State journalism schools, and you can see the trouble coming a mile off.

Goldberg goes easy on the statistics and heavy on the dismaying anecdotes. Indeed, if some people continue to dismiss his work as "anecdotal", you can be sure that that means they are nervous that the peasants might be listening. His chapters are arranged thematically: race, feminism, sports, etc. His tone is a rather yammery blend of sarcasm and incredulity, but the sympathetic reader can take this as proof of how outraged he is over how far his profession's standards have fallen. Frequently, he pauses in his description of how a particular story was misreported, to distance himself from the issue or the principals. His only goal is improving journalism, he says, not joining the right-wing media watchdogs. (Though truth to tell, another watchdog of Goldberg's experience and savvy surely wouldn't hurt.)

The book appeared before a couple of recent media feeding frenzies, which would have fit right in. As I write, the national press corps is running Democratic National Committee talking points as breaking news, making a story out of the quality of President Bush's denials of decades-old and still unproven allegations of being AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. At the same time they are stonewalling for the moment allegations of infidelity on the part of the current Democrat frontrunner. In the internet age, it won't work. Denial is just a river in Egypt, thanks to the internet--and Bernard Goldberg.

Rating:
Summary: Golberg boldly faces his own arrogance and elitism
Review: In this painfully truthful and personal chronicle, Goldberg exposes himself as one of the arrogant media elite that is destroying American journalism. He openly demonstrates his complete lack of professionalism and integrity with his outrageous and unsupported accusations against all those he considers to be liberal.

Goldberg is to be applauded for his forthrightness and his ability to see himself for what he really his. It is a remarkable confession written in an ingenious style. Goldberg never directly states that he is a biased conservative who did everything he could to put his anti-liberal spin on political stories, but he was unhappy that his superiors at CBS would not allow it. No, instead, he makes the case that he is a completely unreliable, dishonest newsman that no sane person should listen to, simply by being himself and spewing his irrational rants against all things that are so-called liberal - a completely original literary approach.

Rating:
Summary: Goldberg's Great Subjective Perspective
Review: After reading so many of the reviews there seems little left to point out. However, Goldberg's book does hit the mark well--the mainstream media is a liberal institution. But try arguing that with your lefty friends. Goldberg is a bit light on hard evidence. So back his excellent read up with Press Bias and Politics, by Jim Kuypers. Kuypers examines 116 mainstream papers and over 700 news articles on hot political issues. His conclusion? Not only is the mainstream media in the grips of a narrow liberal bias, but he also says it is an anti-Democratic institution.