Rating: 
Summary: More readable , More names, more fun
Review: If you decide to compare Goldberg's two books you will liekly find ARROGANCE is the better.The style is a little looser, more names are actually named, several solutions are given for the problem and reaction to the first book is addressed. It is an easier read, almost as if he relieved himself of a burden in the first book and can now spill at will with confort in the 2nd. In truth the fact that I have yet to see a review of this book on a major TV network excluding FOX tends to confirm the author's point. It is however an inferior book to BIAS in the sense that BIAS was a groundbreaking book and this one simply builds on it. Again specific examples in this book make the author's point to the degree that belies the foolhardy way that some have tried to turn the worm on media Bias in general. It is worthwhile as a follow up, but frankly I think the point is made and the franchise is done for now. The only one left to write would be the specific refutation of the books on the other side. In conclusion this book has a point to make and makes it. I would suggest it to people on either side of the arguement for either validation or to attempt to refute.
Rating: 
Summary: this book needs to come with volume control; so much hate...
Review: 'Arrogance...' by Bernard Goldberg was given to me as an Xmas present by a couple of conservative American colleagues. It also represents the first present I would gladly give back. While I am certainly not conservatively minded, 'Arrogance...' is from many angles simply a dreadful book. I thought it would be a balanced study of possible left wing biased journalism in American news programs (television and print). And while the author does raise interesting points, his evidence seems little more than anecdotal fluff. He more effectively demonstrates episodes of bad journalism rather than institutional biased journalism. But what really made me ill was that clearly 70+% of 'Arrogance...' is a anger-filled blast against non-conservatives, often done with a very sarcastic and rude manner. It has been quite some time since I read anything which seemed utterly soaked in *hatred*. Perhaps it is stemmed in professional jealousy (..he is forever demonizing the American elite news presenters such as Rather, Brokaw)? Not sure, but Bernard Goldberg has done his conservative-minded fellow Americans a great disservice in writing this book. The way to win an argument is through rational debate armed with irrefutable facts, not through vile rhetoric and "lets take one episode and make sweeping generalizaitons". Bottom line: reading 'Arrogance..' will do little more than lower your IQ a couple of notches. 200+ pages of hate.
Rating: 
Summary: Very little there there
Review: Mr. Goldberg's cental premise, that the elite media (principally the three broadcast networks, CNN and The New York Times) are corrupted by ivory tower arrogance and bias (to borrow his titles) is certainly worthy of exploration. I actually think he has a point. Unfortunately, "Arrogance" is comprised mainly of ideological vitriol and anecdotal examples that often fail to drive home the substance of that point, changing what could be a thoughtful discussion among folks who actually care about journalism into a political knife fight between "big bad liberals" and poor, under-represented conservatives. Mix in some sour grapes, unintended irony and a lack of depth, and you have "Arrogance". Pointing out that the big-time media's perception and reporting on hot-button social issues of interest to ideologues on both sides of the spectrum tilts left is not a shocker, and some of Goldberg's points there are well-taken. But he addresses only those raw emotional issues, not coverage of the government, economics, politics or any of the many other topics addressed by bib media on a regular basis. He 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. I think it is more than fair, as Goldberg does, to point out that the people who write, edit, produce and deliver the news seem very much separated from the majority of the population by location, income and point of view. But so much is missing: what about a discussion of the media's Northeastern bias? When the Northeast experiences drought of flood or blackout, it's wall-to-wall coverage. Let the damage of nature or man take place in the Southwest or Midwest, and the radar barely registers a blip Mr. Goldberg suggests that his targets move to small-town America, but he doesn't seem aware of his own insulation. He seems to have conducted plenty of his own interviews in New York restaurants, and not to have strayed from elite circles to gather support for his own theories. He also seems willing to cede not only prominence, but exclusive dominion to the networks and the Times. How can Mr. Goldberg's work be at all credible without some discussion of the role that Internet-based news, and news outlets outside Manhattan have actually played in recent years? Without a broader examination of the media (which would blunt his point somewhat) Mr. Goldberg comes across as a disgruntled and somewhat shallow advocate of media objectivity, and a poor journalist to boot.
Rating:
Summary: Worth the Read
Review: I bought and read "Bias." I bought and read "Arrogance." In my opinion, anyone who says "Arrogance" is a rehash of "Bias" hasn't read the whole book. Yes, "Arrogance" is about bias in the media, but its more about the arrogance behind it - the refusal of the media elites to turn a critical eye on themselves. Bernard Goldberg states in this book how, after "Bias" came out, the liberals came up with the argument that there is no liberal bias in the media. There is a conservative bias! Say what?! For years Americans have had news presented to them with a leftist slant from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, and MSNBC (MSNBC is getting better), and only Fox News and talk radio offered a voice for other minded people, and some of these elites can say there is a conservative bias with a straight face? What a hoot. This book offers new material about the New York Times, Frank Rich, and how many liberals today have become "illiberal." Goldberg states that anything having to do with Gay issues draws name calling "at the drop of a hat to shore up their own close-mindedness and orthodoxy. They don't give credence to the "other side," because deep down, I suspect, they don't think there is another side." Another quote from the book: "In Rich's work, the vicious accusation "homophobic," "homophobia," or "homophobe" turns up so often (forty times as of this writing!) its almost laughable." There is also a quote in the book where Dan Rather calls Juanita Broaddrick's rape accusation against Bill Clinton as "something to do with somebody's private sex life..." Unbelievable! What would Dan Rather have called it if Juanita had accused a Republican of rape? There are interviews with Tim Russert and Bob Costas who Goldberg considers fair and balanced journalists (I agree). He discusses specials Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer have done on gay adoption that have a clear message that if, by the end of the program, you don't think gay adoption is good, you are a bad, bad person. I agree with other reviewers who say Mr. Goldberg's writing often takes on an angry, or even bitter tone at times, but I don't hold that against him. What he is trying to do is a good thing, and all he is getting from the media elites is scorn or worse. I would be angry too. But Mr. Goldberg should take heart that he is a hero to millions of Americans. I have one bone to pick with Goldberg. In my opinion, he should have stayed with Regnery publishing and not gone over to Warner Books. Regnery published "Bias" when no one else would. I think they deserved his loyalty. His switching to Warner Books may not attract all the extra readers he had hoped for. I understand why he did it though.
Rating:
Summary: The pot calling the kettle black...
Review: Most of the arguments Goldberg presents are essentially the same as those in his last book, _Bias_. I gave that book 4-stars as well because it was too vitriolic. This time he had the decency to downplay his own martyrdom. Still, he is at times trite and petty. His point is well-taken (even if I don't agree), but his presentation leaves the reader feeling a bit icky for lack of a better word. It is worth reading, but not phenomenal.
Rating: 
Summary: The provincial liberal mindset rightly exposed
Review: "A dismayed hush fell over Firdos Square in Baghdad yesterday as a United States marine pulled an American flag over the head of Saddam Hussein's statue like a gallows hood." - New York Times Lovely. Or better yet, Peter Jennings, far and away the most negative liberal anchor, described the many joyous Iraqi celebrants as a "small crowd." Peter, who had no qualms of grossly overstating the number of looters, had no compunction whatsoever about marginalizing the joy of an oppressed people liberated after years of despotic rule. Peter, who gave prominent airtime to a woman holding a sign that read "KILL Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Powell NOT INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIANS," somehow found it distasteful to air a rally in support of our troops just one day earlier. It turns out the woman was in, of all places, Nairobi, Kenya while the support our troops rally was in New York City - just miles away from Peter's plush network studio. ABC, incidentally, was the only network not to give it airtime. And the beat goes on. The irony of the liberal media, as Goldberg astutely points out, is their unwillingness to be open to diverse points of view. In their insular Ivy League world surrounded with only like-minded liberals, they are never exposed to divergent points of view. Hence, their myopic liberal views are never challenged. As Goldberg states, "It seems to me that liberals - the very people who take pride in seeing themselves as civil and open-minded - have, in a sad kind of way, become precisely what they accuse conservatives of: being close-minded and nasty." When you live in a bubble and surround yourself with only people who think likewise, that is, invariably, what happens. Arrogance entertains, shocks, and educates. A book that everyone should read - liberals especially.
Rating:
Summary: Arrogance should be punishable by law.
Review: Rarely does it happen, that the sequel is better than the original [Bias].
Truly amazing work put together by Mr. Goldberg. The research is thoroughly complied and insightful, showing that the author knows the subject. What I found interesting is that unlike other whistle-blowers, author does not just point out what's wrong with the issue, but also provides an easy roadmap to fix the problem... only if the media giants would listen. Now we can sit here, and debate about how the media won't change their way of showing news, etc. Well, we the people have the power to turn off our TV sets. Sooner or later the networks will realize that people are fed-up. And will try to get us back, by which time we hopefully will realize that our life without TV has improved enormously, to the point that we don't need news anchors to tell us how we should feel about any issue in Our life. Now if you are interested in journalism and thinking about going to school, I got better idea: study both books by Goldberg "Bias" and "Arrogance." By doing so, you will save yourself a lot of money in tuition fees, food and housing. Most importantly however, you will preserve an open and uncorrupted mind that you still have. Finally, I want to point out that if you are writing the review of the book, please do write about the book, do not attack the author. I believe that this act would be classified as a genetic fallacy, ad hominem abusive to be exact, which just to refresh everyone's memory goes something like: "...attempt to disparage the character of the person presenting the argument, to deny that person's intelligence, or to question his/her integrity, while not addressing the statements or arguments being presented..." Wow, one learns something new everyday.
Rating: 
Summary: A rehash of "Bias," but still insightful
Review: Goldberg broke all kinds of new ground with "Bias," and this book doesn't really cover a whole lot that's new. Yet it's remarkably compelling reading if you have an interest not so much in politics--but in journalism. Goldberg makes the point time and again that mainstream media journalists will scrutinize anyone but themselves for honesty and fairness. He also emphasizes that many live in an insulated world and deal only with other media elites, giving them little knowledge of the way it is for the rest of us. He continues to get slaughtered by the mainstream media for pointing these things out, but his 28 years at CBS must point to at least some talent...it's interesting that he suddenly became a hack in their eyes when he dared criticize them. As with "Bias," "Arrogance" points out a number of dubious moments in mainstream broadcast recent history, including ABC president David Westin's infamous comment that "he really didn't have an opinion" on whether the Pentagon was a legitimate military target vis-a-vis the 9/11 attacks. Goldberg's analysis is insightful (i.e. that Westin was afraid of looking like a hayseed for saying anything patriotic in front of a Columbia Journalism School class which clearly looked down on patriotism), as are his comments on the gloom and doom perpetuated by the media as our nation approached and carried out the war with Iraq. Again, many folks immediately brand Goldberg a conservative after hearing his comments, but I firmly believe he's a long-time, fair-minded liberal who puts fairness in the media ahead of a certain slant. Goldberg does look at hot-button political issues in this book, including the gay agenda, race, abortion and feminist issues, but he examines them through the eyes of a politically correct mainstream media--what's both fascinating and distressing is how so many of these journalists hold the same liberal beliefs and thereby assume everyone else does...or should. Based on that, he says, it shouldn't surprise anyone that coverage of those issues comes off as PC and slanted, and he says that it shouldn't surprise the mainstream media that viewership is eroding because folks are tired of having slanted reporting forced down their throats. But the media doesn't or won't see it, Goldberg says, much to their detriment and continued demise. There are conversations with the likes of Tim Russert and Bob Costas, who both make very interesting comments of the crux of Goldberg's arguments. Yes, there are probably too many references to his CBS days and specifically Dan Rather, but I don't see Goldberg as bitter--I see him as someone who's scratching his head at how skewed the mainstream media has become. "Arrogance" isn't a total rehash of "Bias" since it ends with a twelve-step program by which mainstream journalists can level their own playing field. There are some very common-sense ideas, including the notion that putting a mainstream broadcasting network in a small city in states like South Dakota, Mississippi or Nevada would be fascinating based on the different kinds of people these journalists would see every day. Okay, so that one was a bit tongue in cheek, but his advice to journalists to stop taking themselves so seriously and accept criticism, approach each story with an open mind rather than a preconceived approach and allowing diversity of thought in newsrooms rather in appearance only are all excellent ideas. If you enjoyed "Bias" and found it enlightening, the same will hold true for "Arrogance." Anyone with an interest in the media will find it fascinating, and it's strongly recommended for anyone contemplating a career in journalism.
Rating:
Summary: Liberal verses Extreme Leftist
Review: While Bernard Goldberg has certainly phrased the issue properly- that the Media/Press slants to the left for the most part, he is using the wrong word to describe this left leaning establishment within the Media and the Press. Liberal is not the appropriate word to use today. Liberals died out with FDR, Harry Truman and John Kennedy. Today the liberal of the 1930's, 40's, 50's, and 60's has been eclipsed by a more radical element- EXTREME LEFTIST. Doctor Dean, Dennis the Menace and Reverand Al are only symptoms of this form of fanaticism. They are the "Blame America First Crowd" and the epitome of the Special Interst Legions that descend on the nation's capitol like a plague of locast. Goldberg has managed to let us get a glimpse into how the Extreme Leftist work to influence public opinion and at the same time, for the most part, lock out free expression, new ideas and the ability to be fair.
Rating:
Summary: A great book
Review: This is a great book, despite its flaws (too sarcastic in spots, some points not fleshed out). That an insider like Goldberg should break ranks is almost a miracle. Which is why I think his ultimate goal for this book will fail: hoping the liberal media will read it and change their ways. The condescending liberals he takes to task share at least one other trait than arrogance, and that is R-I-G-I-D-I-T-Y!!!!!! Rigidity. Trying to convert the rigid and inflexible is to tilt at windmills. But I still loved this book, for who doesn't admire Don Quixote? We could use more Don Quixotes these days.
| 
