Rating: 
Summary: The Arrogance of Bernard Goldberg
Review: Anyone who reads this book would greatly benefit from reading the chapter about Mr. Goldberg in Al Franken's book on the lies of the right-wing. Namely, Bernard Goldberg has been known to ignore the facts when it suits his purposes--particular when he defamed the memory of NBC News commentator John Chancellor by trying to argue that he was soft on communism when the opposite was true; Goldberg merely twisted the facts and took them out of their context. That would make him seem like an arrogant member of the media elite. Actually, it pinpoints the main problem with the mainstream media. Most of the reporters have become too rich and lazy to try to expose the truth about the lies that Goldberg and his ilk defend when they come from the White House and its media lackeys. Too bad. Goldberg used to do some fine reporting for CBS News, but he has descended to a level of hackery beneath even that of the media members he condemns.By the way, for more on the point about how the media abuse us by ignoring reality, you might try reading not only Paul Krugman's The Great Unraveling, but Russell Baker's review of it in The New York Review of Books and the subsequent Los Angeles Times article in which Baker cogently explains that the mainstream media are neither liberal nor conservative, just fat and happy.
Rating:
Summary: Arrogance
Review: I can't believe Goldberg is calling anyone arrogant. He's not a serious person. Just the kind of person Fox or someone like that likes to quote without asking any serious questions. Goldberg and his crowd just aren't held to the same standards as the New York Times, CBS and the rest. Really awful.
Rating: 
Summary: Must Read
Review: Everyone is aware that the mainstream media has a liberal bias but they don't know exactly how it is implemented. This book explains how. It also documents the bias. He explains how bias starts at the head of the New York Times and filters down to the evening news. He explains how bias is implemented even by the words used to describe individuals and events. He also talks about what is left out of the news. Even if you thought you knew how the press was liberal this book will amaze you.
Rating:
Summary: Very funny
Review: The inferior man's reasons for hating knowledge are not hard to
discern. He hates it because it is complex--because it puts an
unbearable burden upon his meager capacity for taking in ideas.
Thus his search is always for short cuts. All superstitions are such
short cuts. Their aim is to make the unintelligible simple, and even
obvious. So on what seem to be higher levels. No man who has
not had a long and arduous education can understand even the
most elementary concepts of modern pathology. But even a hind
at the plow can grasp the theory of chiropractic in two lessons.
Hence the vast popularity of chiropractic among the submerged--
and of osteopathy, Christian Science and other such quackeries
with it. They are idiotic, but they are simple--and every man
prefers what he can understand to what puzzles and dismays him. The popularity of Fundamentalism among the inferior orders of
men is explicable in exactly the same way. The cosmogonies that
educated men toy with are all inordinately complex. To
comprehend their veriest outlines requires an immense stock of
knowledge, and a habit of thought. It would be as vain to try to
teach to peasants or to the city proletariat as it would be to try to
teach them to streptococci. But the cosmogony of Genesis is so
simple that even a yokel can grasp it. It is set forth in a few
phrases. It offers, to the ignorant man, the irresistible
reasonableness of the nonsensical. So he accepts it with loud
hosannas, and has one more excuse for hating his betters. H.l. menken
Rating: 
Summary: Food for thought for people who care about the news
Review: As someone who loves to read and is a news junkie, I recommend Bernard Goldberg's latest offering. I will be the first to admit that I come to the table agreeing with much of what has been written here. Goldberg cites examples of liberal bias on a cornucopia of issues ranging from poverty to abortion to the war in Iraq. He cites countless specific examples and includes numerous direct quotes from the offending journalists. While newsrooms have certainly made it a top priority to address the problem of cultural and racial diversity over the past two decades, they have at the same time clearly neglected the concept of philosophical diversity. They seem to be isolated in their own little world. Personally, I find it astounding that so many members of the national media at the networks and major news magazines are so blatently one sided. What are they afraid of? As an avid reader of history and current events I make it my business to read a variety of viewpoints on issues that concern us all. Should we not expect our friends in the media to do the same? I particularly enjoyed the interview with NBC's Tim Russert. Goldberg admires Tim's even-handed approach and Russert has some fascinating things to say about his profession. I found the scariest part of this book to be the segment devoted to the Columbia School of Journalism. It would appear from the examples cited that the school routinely stifles conservative opinion among it's students. The author also offers up some reasonable suggestions as to how to fix some of these problems. I hope someone is listening.
Rating:
Summary: Hilarious!
Review: This is a wonderful humor book. I especially like how he compares his work to Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at any speed." Thankfully, he refrained from comparing himself to Ghandi and Jesus. Also how he refers to Rush Limbaugh as "smart and knowledgable" (apparently he's been listening to a different show than the rest of us). He uses the word "hypocrisy" like Holden Caufield used "phony". That's a nice touch.
I'll give him this, I disagree with his viewpoint, but at least when he uses facts and claims (such as the liberal media's failure to pick up on the quote about Dan Rather), he is actually correct, unlike Bill O'Reilly.
Finally, there are the numerous instances of his dismissal of liberal ideas and rolling his eyes at liberal viewpoints. Then he discusses how liberals show contempt for conservative viewpoints. Hmm.
The question I have about this book: Why was it written? Goldberg already expressed his views in "Bias" - why write this superfluous work? Hardly a surprise it failed to sell well (at least that's what my friends in the liberal media tell me). All of the praise on the back is for "Bias".
Rating: 
Summary: Unusual Clarity
Review: "Arrogance" would be just another nail in the liberal press coffin except for one sterling chapter. In the middle of the book, Bernard Goldberg interviews Bob Costas about media sports coverage, bias, and political correctness. Costas is a self- acknowledged liberal on most political matters, but when he discusses how the national media handles blacks and females in sports, he plows new ground and sounds like a conservative. His explanations about the misbehavior of black professional athletes (and how the press refuses to mention it) is worth the price of the book. Costas explains himself with such great examples and such clarity that I have read that chapter at least four times already. It is a chapter that should be reprinted in every sports magazine.
Rating:
Summary: Benard vs The Liberal Media Part II
Review: I read Bias by Bernard Goldberg when it first came out and generally enjoyed the book. His insight into the news media, espically as an insider at CBS news was quite interesting. My only comment against Bias was his contact attack on Dan Rather. While I am far from a Dan Rather fan, Bernard Goldberg came off sounding a little revengeful. Though, you can't hardly blame him. So with that in mind, when Arrogance came out, I was intrigued and was given the book by my wife for Christmas. Clearly, Bernard Goldberg has a unique insight into the news media, espically in the area of television. He provides example after example of the bias that is very apparent with the current news coverage we see everyday. A nice little chapter on the difference between the conservatives on radio and the liberals on TV, made some very good points. Another nice part of the book is several interviews he inserted with Tim Russert, Bob Costas and even Andy Rooney if you can call Andy's an actual interview. Read the book and you will understand. Goldberg, goes to great lengths to explain that the point of attaching the liberal bias in the media is not to create a conservative bias, but rather bring news reporting back to the purpose of telling the news. The most telling parts of Arrogance is the numerious examples of very popular media figures providing very clear cut biases that affects not only the types of stories they cover, but even they kind of stories they cover. To this end, Arrogance is a very telling book and one that can get anybody's blood boiling. However, Bernard Goldberg, once again gets into a petty childhood playground battle with Dan Rather and CBS News. This is nothing, but rehashing the same points he made in Bias and in Arrogance it brings the book down from being a very good book to being an good, but redundant. I believe Arrogance and even Bias would have received a much better response had he stayed away from his apparent anger at Dan Rather and CBS News, because it distracts from his overall arguement about liberal bias in the media, which is pretty good. My only other fault with the book is that Arrogance continues the same theme Bernard spoke of in Bias. In fact, you could have made this one book and have part one and part two. I was a little disappointed Arrogance didn't really go deeper into the history of news reporting, the indepth on goings in the newsroom and essientially getting more into the down and dirty of modern news reporting. Then again, that is not really the purpose of the book. Arrogance is designed to hit the liberal bias in the media and hit it hard and fast and get out. It is apparent Bernard Goldberg has some very good insight into the problem in the media, if he can drop the petty infighting and get serious without the personnal attacks, I think he would receive a much larger response and more creditability than he as. In the end, Arrogance deserves 3 starts. 5 for good reporting and awsome examples, but only a 2 for moving beyond Bias and giving the audience something more.
Rating:
Summary: Spotlighting Thought Control
Review: Bernard Goldberg attacks "bias" in the news, and the "arrogance" of the media elite (the faces that read the scripted news). But a publication will always reflect the bias of the owner (p.55); it is no more objective than a voter selecting candidates. Even allocating a story among different points of view reflects the judgment of the writers. Can a corporation dependent on advertising print news that offends its advertisers? The real problem is corporate ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations and their national censorship. And the lack of voluntary associations that can prevent a counterpoint to corporate propaganda. The talk of "diversity" seems to camouflage the growing monopolization of the press, which makes it less diverse. This easy-reading and thought provoking book presents coverage of the news that you won't find in the corporate controlled media. When you read of hear their stories, measure them by asking: who benefits from this? How often do they advance democracy and the power of the people? You will gain wisdom and understanding of the special interests behind the news. Most of all, do not depend on just one source. BG shows how the networks are mostly like peas in a pot, and copy from the Establishment's newspaper of record, all the news that is printed to fit their agenda. BG's book seems to be repetitive in spots, and could use better editing. The chapters are unnumbered. The chapter on pages 185-196 has suppressed news that you should read. "Political correctness" is the new word for "thought control" (p.1). This is as old as civilization. Manhattan is the headquarters of the ruling classes (banking, insurance, shipping, merchants, advertising, publications, broadcasting, etc.) since the 1880s (p.2). Why does BG quote Andrew Sullivan (p.3)? BG questions the "vast liberal conspiracy" phrase on page 4, but doesn't mention the National Association of Editors and Publishers! The denial of "liberal bias" seems to imply the media elite cannot admit their control by the owners (p.6). If reporters don't know whether they're Republicans or Democrats it could mean they're ducking a purge! Page 7 mentions the propaganda spouters on talk radio, but doesn't mention who pays for this. Are they cheaper than the music they replaced? Page 9 asks why there is "no current liberal talk show host"; this in a book that talks about bias? Page 10 mentions "art" that offends sensible people, but dares not say that corporations paid for it! George Orwell's "1984" told where the opposition was controlled by the ruling class. Does this apply to arguments between Democrats and Republicans, who are the equivalent of professional sports teams? Its usually the public that loses from these battles (Bush's "massive tax cuts for the rich" on page 11). You can measure this by the decline in personal wealth since the Nixon Administration. BG's comparison of ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS to Fox is so outrageously biased as to need no comments (p.12). I wouldn't trust BG to shuffle a card deck! BG is also wrong in his reference to Sherlock Holmes ("Silver Blaze") on page 14.
Rating:
Summary: Arrogant, indeed - and hypocritical
Review: Mr. Goldberg seems to have had himself in mind when he wrote the title to this book -- "Arrogance." Blatant hypocrisy is the height of arrogance, and his latest tome is full of it. Though he writes in a generally congenial tone, he nevertheless lobs more than his share of uncivil and unbalanced attacks at those with whom he disagrees ideologically. But the worst aspect of his book is his selective use of anecdotes that support his own bias and his disregard of those that would deflate it. Whether he does this out of ignorance or dishonesty, I cannot claim to know. But he has certainly done a good deal of sloppy reporting here. Which is all the worse in a book meant to slap the wrists of reporters who do just that. He woefully misses the big picture: that there are extremists on all sides of the political spectrum, and that there is much sloppy reporting. He fails to do a thorough, thoughtful and scientific analysis of why he perceives a liberal bias in American media. Instead he starts with a conclusion, then merely collects evidence to support it. And where he fails to find evidence, he offers his own guesses AS facts. Just one of the many examples is his claim that "almost all" of the child-molesting Catholic priests are gay. Really? How does he know this? Have they all come out to him personally? Wow, that'd be pretty in-depth reporting there, Mr. Goldberg. But since Goldberg offers zero evidence for this startling claim, we must gather that Mr. Goldberg is presuming to know all of the offending priests' innermost identities -- despite much psychological evidence (about child molestation in general) to the contrary -- which is screamingly ARROGANT. (Furthermore, one must wonder what possible use such a claim could have. Even if it were true, does he conduct a thoughtful, thorough analysis about why this might happen within the Catholic church? No, of course not. He only says enough to make false bogeymen out of liberals, of course.) If we're ever to advance as a thinking people, we need to think thoroughly and fairly. Unfortunately, Goldberg has primarily done the precise opposite, and thus he has done his small part to derail intelligent American discourse. Thanks for the disservice to our country, Mr. Goldberg.
| 
