Rating: 
Summary: anything but balanced
Review: This book claims to have devastating examples of major media sources giving nationwide distribution to stories that are patently false -- but which suit their political agenda.
I wonder if that includes the distribution of the Bush administration's claims of evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
It's not media bias that results in the disemination of erroneous information, it's incompetence, indifference and greed. Mr Goldberg merely presents the examples that fit his agenda.
Rating: 
Summary: ok.. but with lots of flaws
Review: From a literary point of view, the book could have been written better. It's wordy, sloppy, it ought to be trimmed down, leave out cheap shots, avoid getting even, refrain from hyperbole and substantiate his claims with references. That would have made it a far superior book, and a respectable as such. All in all it seems like a hasty rehash of Goldberg's first book, "Bias", with an added 12 steps program to cure the problem.In terms of content, although I agree with the author that the mainstream media has a left-wing bias, I must point out that the book has several big flaws. Goldberg seems to read too much into things. He, for instance, sees CBS's policy to allow interviewees to record their interviews but forbid them to publish it without CBS's consent, as hypocritical. CBS adopted that policy because an interviewee published his entire interview on the web before CBS had a chance to edit and air it. One wonders what's the problem here? The interview IS in fact CBS's property, and it has the right to distribute it as it seems fit. Goldberg does not show that liberal bias is pervasive. I agree with the reviewer who wrote that Goldberg "more effectively demonstrates episodes of bad journalism rather than institutional biased journalism" and with the reviewer who wrote, "[Goldberg] seems to have picked examples to match his conclusions, rather than trying to do anything like a good analysis of the spectrum of stories and points of view one might find on the big networks, or in The Times." Worse, the book is sourly lacking in facts, which ultimately reflects poorly on Goldberg's own bias: 1. Goldberg makes many statements without backing them up with evidence. Several examples: He claims that the mainstream media routinely fails to report the race of a rapist who is still at large, when he is black, for fear of offending blacks and of feeding into racial stereotypes, but offers no evidence for that outrageous claim. If this is true, it is clearly a serious matter, but am I supposed believe him without any evidence? He also claims that, "almost all of the priests involved in the [child molestation] scandal were in fact gay", but, again, offers no evidence for that. How does he know that the priests were gay and not heterosexuals molesting boys? 2. Goldberg often makes his case by asking hypothetical questions rather than backing up his point with facts. Can you believe that?? 3. Goldberg seems to take sides on issues without fully knowing the facts. He brings a case where a gay employee of Leone Helmsley sued her for firing him because he's gay. He won and was awarded $554,000. Goldberg briefly cites her defense and then comments: "the particulars of the case aside, to anyone following the proceedings it certainly seemed apparent that abuse in this area of the law was possible, maybe even inevitable. The charge of discrimination is a powerful weapon. And when it is made unjustly, how, realistically, is an employer or landlord supposed to fight it?" The problem with this comment is twofold. First, it gives the impression that he thinks Helmsley was unjustly accused. What evidence does he have for that? The court surely didn't think so! Is he suggesting that the court got it wrong? Secondly, ANY legal weapon can be used unjustly, and it is the responsibility of the legal system to insure that it does not happen. Is that supposed to be an argument against legal protection for gays? A full chapter is then dedicated to Goldberg's idea that on some matters journalists SHOULD take a stance and SHOULD NOT be neutral. He argues that, "certain issues, it seems to me, are clear cut. Certain issues do not have two sides ... certain acts civilized people simply cannot in good conscience regard with anything but unmitigated horror, revulsion, and anger". Without getting into a philosophical debate, this claim undermines the entire premise of the book. Up to that point Goldberg argued that the media should leave its own opinions and biases out of reporting. But now he is arguing that on some matters journalists SHOULD take a stance and they SHOULD NOT be neutral EVEN IN THEIR REPORTINGS. The first question this raises is, Why? Why should they not be neutral on all matters? Why should they not report the facts as they are and let the public decide, even on these matters? Remember, we're not dealing here with their opinion section but the reporting section. Second, where do you draw the line? A journalist advocating a liberal cause might see his cause as a clear-cut matter too. And if you think Goldberg is referring only to really horrific things, I will turn your attention to the last paragraph of this book where Goldberg suggests that the media should use Ed Murrow, the legendary CBS News correspondent, as their guide. Back in the 50s, after doing an entire program on Senator Joe McCarthy, Murrow commented: "We are not descended from fearful men, [we're] not men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the results". An activist, liberal journalist would say, Hurrah!
Rating: 
Summary: Arrogance
Review: Thank Goodness someone has shown Bernie Goldberg "the light" he exposes all the dirty little secrets in the newsrooms that no one else had the courage to speak about. Its a fantastic book- well researched and very entertaining I especially enjoyed the cd version. I would love to get Dan Rather and those other useless anchors put them in a padded cell and make them listen to Bernard Goldberg's book. He shows a lot of courage in his writings and is not afraid to take on the tough subject of race in America and how the media treats the subject. He exposes the PC police which are the mainstream media! I hope the NY Times owner (I believe his name is Salzberger) reads this book and realizes he needs to move out of his distorted 60's mindset and start giving us some real news which is meaningful! We're sick of him using the national and global news as his own editorial page! Kudos to Bernie! He's my idol in 2004
Rating:
Summary: Better than Bias
Review: I enjoyed Bernard Goldberg's book Bias, but I got the impression that he was so terrified of his own words he could only stick his little toe into the frigid water. After surviving intact, he dives right in with Arrogance; this is a MUCH better book and funny, too!
The only problem I have with Arrogance, is that at the end of the book he uses the term "McCarthyism" to describe character assassination. I, too, thought that was the definition of "McCarthyism" until I read Ann Coulter's meticulously referenced book Treason. This is another liberal lie that's been repeated so often everyone believes it - the real victim of "McCarthyism" was Joseph McCarthy.
You'll enjoy Arrogance!
Rating: 
Summary: In depth analysis
Review: "Bias" blew the lid off the subject of bias in the big media and "Arrogance" is an excellent follow up to that title for those who want to go deeper and understand more about this profoundly important subject.
Rating:
Summary: More Right Wing Clap Trap, Albeit Polite For Once!
Review: Goldberg sticks to the usual Right Wing mantra, all media are BAD, Anti American, Liberal & so on. For once we have someone expressing this message with some decorum, not the usual mindless, schoolchild vitriol you find in the normal Right Wing sewer that pumps out such rubbish as "Treason". However this charm offensive is still simply that, offensive. The mistakes in Goldberg's resaoning are obvious. Somehow we are lead to believe that Fox "News" isn't part of the media! This rabidly Right Wing station, that makes laughable claims such as having a "No Spin Zone" (all the time spinning it's coverage to the Right of Adolf Hitler) is one of the worst examples of the truth behind the US media of today. Add to that the endless clones on Talk Radio all of whom seem to be taking their scripts from Republican Party Headquaters & The Myth is revealed. This is especially the case when we have Talk Radio hosts that are revealed to be hypocrits & a criminal of the worst kind, yet the coverage is minimal. Imagine the endless news items you'd get if Limbaugh was a liberal, you'd never hear the end of it. Then you have a "News" Network that concentrated on Bill Clintons' alleged avoidance of the Vietnam draft (which, under the law of the time, he was entitled to do!) & yet ignores "W" Bush's avoidance of the same draft (by joining the Air National Guard) & the desertion of his post for a year (1972-1973) without expanation, then you know you're living in Neo-Con Fantasy Land. This is without the farce of the Whitewater investigation, which wasted tens of of millions tax payer's money for years & achieved nothing (people forget that Clinton was investigated for losing his own money, unlike Rumsfeld & Halliburton, or Enron etc etc etc which is playing fast & loose with US citizen's money for the private gain of people in power). TV & Radio is predominantly very Right Wing, while the press is mainly Left Wing. Compare that to the bilge presented in Goldberg's pages & you can see how blind he is. He only wants to concentrate on the "Liberal" part. This book is politically motivated, broadcasting a simple personal bias & does not deal with the facts in a balanced & even handed manner. It is the closest thing to a work of fiction that you could achieve without inventing characters to populate your story. In that respect it is on good company with the rest of the Neo Con ouvre. By the way Liberals are Americans who love their country too. Plenty of Liberals fly their flag with pride, join the military & some die for their country. The most damming part of Goldberg's book is that he never explains just what is so bad about being Liberal. But then Right Wing Neo-Cons never do.
Rating:
Summary: great follow-up to Bias; constructive criticism
Review: While some of the skewering is sometimes entertaining, this would have been a pale follow-up to Bias if it hadn't been for one signicant component to this new book: it spends a good bit of time pointing out potential (and reasonable) resolutions to the obvious problem. This shows that Goldberg actually cares for his trade. There is more than "skewering" going on here. The author appears to sincerely care about his craft. (And Mr. Shaw, if you or your publisher happen to be reading these reviews, I appreciate your recommending Indianapolis as a new HQ for the newsmedia. I've found that our city's people have a pretty representative view of the country. Even though Indiana is a "red state", the city itself has liberals and conservatives in pretty good balance.) Goldberg also alludes to another problem with the news media (of which he says is another topic): their typical avoidance of balanced and ORIGINAL coverage of actual "news"...and replacing it with so-called "personal interest" stories. I could learn to live with some bias in the news if I actually got news, actual compelling information for my life, instead of the blah, blah, blah Britney, Lacy, Menendez Brothers posing as news. Goldberg should write another in depth analysis of how the news has been hijacked by what he rightly referred to in this book as "crap". The chapter in this book which amounts to a two-quotation juxtaposition by Barbara Walters is as entertaining as it is revealing. When I first read that "chapter", I thought it was just a stab at Walters -- an easy mark. I had to read it twice and put it into the context of the whole book to really let the point of that chapter hit home in the form that it was offered. Well done.
Rating:
Summary: Mr. Goldberg should take his own advise
Review: I read the book after watching Mr. Goldberg on television several times. I was looking forward to the book. Mr. Goldberg attacks mainstream media for not checking it facts while making obvious errors, for taking things out of context and for media taking sides in the issues of the day. He then fails to follow his own advise. On page 219 and 220 he allegedly quotes Ted Turner for calling the 911 hijackers brave. Obviously this was wrong and he puts words in Mr. Turner's mouth. Then he cites a speech of Febraury 11, 2000. Either Mr. Turner can see in the future or the refence is wrong as this speech would have occurred 19 months before the hijackers took over the planes. He then ends the book by saying the media elites should follow Ed Murrow for their guide. He then quotes Mr. Murrow taking sides on a great issue of the time. I thought the book drags on and he takes long to make his point. I agree with what he says he should just follow his own advise.
Rating:
Summary: End the arrogance: Stop supporting the media elite
Review: Goldberg's follow up to "Bias" works hard to update the examples of poor, biased journalism, well-rooted in a close-minded conceit (arrogance), with quotes, personal stories, quick anecdotes and short chapters. The evidence is pretty well known and difficult to refute, especially for those who read "Bias" and wanted more. My major if sole objection is to Goldberg's game plan to correct this arrogant bias. He provides a twelve-step program for those media elite drunk on their own arrogance when, in fact, there is a simpler, more direct solution. That is cut off the alcohol. In other words, as many people have done, turning off the television, cancelling their subscriptions to the NY Times, and carefully constructing their own new media from blogs, talk shows, churches, and conservative books, the clear way to dry out the media elite is to simply ignore them, and to find a better way. And that seems to be happening already. The market for ideas and news has shifted.
Rating:
Summary: A No Nonsense Eye-Opener
Review: I got this book for Christmas and finished it Christmas night & urged my wife to read it as soon as she could. She did and was astonished to read this eye-opener. The media is pulling out all stops to have us believe "Their liberal way" (Of course THEY don't believe they're doing that.) I recommend this book to anyone who is open minded (especially liberals)
| 
