Rating: 
Summary: Not Much New Here
Review: When an author has a successful book, especially one that becomes a number one bestseller, they are usually encouraged to pump out a follow-up volume and get it out there as quickly as possible to capitalize on the success of the first. If the author is wise, he or she will resist the temptation, because the second hastily-written book will usually represent a dramatic drop-off in quality from its predecessor. This is true of Ann Coulter's "Treason" and Michael Moore's "Dude, Where's My Country?" It's also the case with "Arrogance," Bernard Goldberg's sequel to "Bias."If "Bias" could more aptly have been called "I Hate Dan Rather So Much!," then "Arrogance" could more truthfully be called "Look at Me! I'm Famous! Woo-Hoo!" I don't exactly begrudge Goldberg exulting in what's left of his 15 minutes of fame, but I have to admit that what he has come up with in "Arrogance" is a total rip-off. Thrown together, outrageously padded in order to make it appear to be a real book, the gist of this volume could have served as a twenty-page epilogue to a paperback edition of "Bias." The rest, believe it or not, is filler. 280 pages of filler. Goldberg does take several pages to attack the people who criticized his first book (with such witty ripostes as - and this is a direct quote - "I was really annoyed!"), and plumps several more pages with quotes garnered from the right-wing Media Research Center, but then so much of this book is padding (several "chapters" consist of a single page, one of only five lines of text - if you're counting, that's only two more than a haiku poem) that it's difficult to wade through the filler in order to get to the tiny fraction of the text that actually says something.
Perhaps because this book was written (or, rather, assembled) so hastily, some of Goldberg's own biases are starting to show. For example, only two people are allowed to "smartly observe" something in this book, and they're both conservative (Ann Coulter on page 44, and Betsy Hart on page 183). Also, Goldberg refers to conservative Hilton Kramer as "a distinguished critic and social thinker," yet liberal economist Paul Krugman is described as "a one-note samba left-wing ideologue." In addition, his research is less than thorough. Goldberg's statement that David Brock's "Blinded by the Right," a self-serving mea culpa of Brock's former career as a right-wing hatchet man, was given a free ride by the mainstream media is demonstrably false. The book was scathingly reviewed both by the Washington Post and on Time magazine's website. You know how I know that? Because I wrote the latter review. But I get the feeling that Goldberg must have missed it on Lexis/Nexis. Maybe he could try again? Some of his prescriptions for changing the media are, to put it mildly, a little tired. Goldberg thinks for example that it's a startlingly original idea to suggest that major news organizations move to cities elsewhere than New York. Gee, Bernie, remember CNN in Atlanta? Or even further back, when Time magazine moved its entire editorial offices to Ohio? By the way I'm not making that up - they really did - and it was a disaster. I'm not going to say that everything Goldberg says is incorrect. Too often the New York Times does tell other media outlets what to think, and Hillary Clinton did far too often get coverage that was fawning at best. But Goldberg doesn't really say anything here that he didn't say in his earlier book (which wasn't that good to begin with), and too much of the sequel is padding. If this was a 20-page pamphlet, I would suggest that you give it a glance even if only to disagree with it. But this skimpy little volume is not worth the money, and its conclusions have pretty much been demolished by Eric Alterman in his book "What Liberal Media?" So my advice is to forget about "Arrogance" and read "What Liberal Media?" instead.
Rating: 
Summary: How To Watch The News
Review: Bernie Goldberg's "Arrogance" is another installment in the recent blitz of media-bashing exposés. A number of pundits and media insiders--mostly conservative--have authored books critical of the "liberal" media, which should go a long way toward ending the Left's monopoly on the news. This has helped thrust FOX News to new heights, spurned growth of talk radio, and offers the general public more options and points of view from which to gather information on the current events that shape our world. This is a good thing. In "Arrogance" Goldberg starts out, oddly, with a weak and unpersuasive discussion of an ongoing correspondence he'd been having with CBS's Andy Rooney. The tone of this chapter is vindictive, and the crux of his assertion--that Rooney is a left-leaning weenie who inadvertently exposed CBS's liberal core and then backtracked, equivocated, and covered up when challenged--was largely trivial and irrelevant. But the book gathers steam and improves throughout. His explanation of how "news" is developed almost exclusively by the wires and the New York Times and fed to the public is eye opening. The examples of how individual stories are spun--whether intentionally or not--is fascinating. And he points out clearly that it is the omission of critical stories or pertinent information on stories that causes the largest bias. He also provides a statistic that dramatically shows how critically important all this is: that while 95% of the general public does not subscribe to the New York Times, 95% of policymakers and elite do. To his credit (and thankfully, since too much of the book is whiny) Goldberg then launches into what he calls his "12-Step Program" for "Rescuing America From the Media Elite" and fixing what's wrong in America's newsrooms. His ideas for this are well thought out, and some might even work. Goldberg is obviously a conservative and "Arrogance" is more evidence of the Right's purportedly unfair treatment by the media. But the big picture from the book is the valuable lesson on how the news works, how bias gets inserted, how insidious that can be, and therefore, how consumers should view the news. Regardless of ideology, this book is further proof that news should be watched with a critical, suspicious eye, and that the best-informed people will get a news story from several divergent sources before reaching conclusions. --Christopher Bonn Jonnes, author of BIG ICE and WAKE UP DEAD
Rating: 
Summary: Same as Bias only more of the same
Review: This is a follow-up book to his book Bias about the liberal bias in the media. Arrogance gives more proof of the existence of bias, more spiteful comments about people he's mad at, typical issues with typical examples, offers no serious solution and serves to annoy liberals as well as conservatives who already know everything he could possibly say. Read Bias and stop there. This book offers nothing new to the discussion.
Rating: 
Summary: Better than BIAS
Review: I have just finished reading ARROGANCE. It is an incredibly interesting book and, despite what some of the liberal reviewers say, Mr. Goldberg's research is impeccable. My husband has just started reading it and cannot put it down. I just wish that the MEDIA ELITE would read it and follow his 12 step program. A definite must-read for everyone! It is a very well-balanced book
which does not take cheap shots, as does Al Franken's.
Rating:
Summary: What about the Red Zone?
Review: In "Arrogance," Bernard Goldberg presents a second strong anecdotal case ("Bias" being the first) in favor of the argument that a liberal bias exists in the major national newsrooms of America. While we all have biases and they are part of our nature, Goldberg effectively argues that in the elite newsrooms of America this bias actually affects how the news is presented. While some critics have nitpicked at the accuracy of a few examples cited in the book, the underlying premise of this book appears to be well taken. Goldberg's viewpoint is not new or original, but clearly the anecdotal information contained in this book reinforces what all but the most unreasonable among us cannot in good conscience deny (Noam Chomsky and Al Frankin notwithstanding.) There is a liberal bias in the newsroom that directly affects the way news is presented. If you disagree, I challenge you to prove it with facts not with rhethorical pablum and name calling. My criticism of this book is that it is essentially limited to an analysis of Eastern Media Elite (The major networks, CNN, the New York Times and The Washington Post.) The stories and the anecdotes for the most part center only upon those news outlets and the people involved in them. It would be more revealing and perhaps a more complete analysis if Mr. Goldberg had taken the time to talk to news media in the "Red Zone" where I live. Based upon my personal experience and perspective, Bernard Goldberg's observations are generally well taken. However, is the same liberal bias present in Omaha, Oklahoma City, Denver or Salt Lake City? The answer is we don't know. Unfortunately Mr. Goldberg has not taken the time or effort in this book to examine the Red Zone media. Having said that, even in Dallas I see on an almost daily basis blatant examples of the media spin Goldberg describes in his book. As Bernard says it's often not what is said but how it is said, that colors a story. Just today I heard a classic example. In discussing the President commenting on the improving job picture, the reporter's story began "After raising one million dollars at a political fund raiser today, President Bush received some good news regarding the economy." Balance or Bias?" Would the same report have begun similarly if Al Gore or Bill Clinton were President? As my good friend Dave Barry would say "and I'm not making this up." In Arrogance, the single most important point Bernard Goldberg makes is this. Given the great racial and cultural diversity that newsrooms publicly seek, given the progress made in bringing racial minorities into the newsroom, is it not time that we also saw some GENUINE diversity of thinking in the newsroom? Think about it before you criticize this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
Review: Bernie sounds more like a disgruntled employee. And he is either not a very good journalist (hence ex-CBS employee?), or he intentionally misleads his readers. I haven't read this one, but here's some nuggets from BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News. For instance, he complains that the Heritage Foundation is refered to as a Conservative think tank, and the Brookings Institution is not called a Liberal think tank. Well, that's because the Heritage Foundation identifies it's mission as being to "promote conservative public policies", while the Brookings Institution states it's committed to "independent, factual and nonpartisan research." He also picked a quote showing "liberal hate speech" while debating Al Frankin on DONAHUE. He tried to present the quote as meaning that liberals believed the problem in the Soviet Union wasn't Communism but shortages. Unfortunantly for him, on national television, what the quote was really about (the collapse of the coup, and Gorbachev not being able to use communism as an excuse) was made quite clear by Frankin. He showed a clip of Tom Brokaw talking about what a great day it was in history (with the will of the people being greater than the cold-blooded men who wanted to return them to oppression). He's kind of misleading and right leaning.
Rating:
Summary: Another Homerun from Goldberg
Review: This is a terrific addition to the literature concerning the growing bias and arrogance of America's national media. One need only to scan a few of the major networks news broadcasts or pick up a national newspaper to see the bias writ large. It is so blatant and "in your face" now that its existence can no longer be denied.
Rating:
Summary: sloppy again
Review: Once again, Goldberg has written a book that when you apply the scientific method of gathering facts and evidence is shown to be riddled with lies. How many books are the Right going to write that aren't right? Remember: The right wing lies. The wing right wants to take your money so they can buy drugs like Rush. Ignore them!
Rating:
Summary: Arrogance is right on the mark
Review: I don't classify myself as liberal or conservative, and I register to vote as an independent. But anyone with an independent brain can't avoid agreeing with the conclusions that Bernard Goldberg has reached in Arrogance--which are, that powerful media elites operate in an ideological world of their own creation, are subject to group-think, and view their own peculiar set of beliefs as moral absolutes. While accurately recognizing that no "conspiracy" among medial elites exists, Goldberg demonstrates that the consequences of such thought patterns leads to condescenion in matters of race relations, an authoritarian imposition of conformity in the newsroom, and the ultimate distortion of the mission of the journalist, which is to provide the news in an objective fashion. For Goldberg, journalistic diversity is only "skin-deep", as elites squelch excellence and independent thought to protect special interests. But special attention is also given also given to throw-backs (Tim Russert, Bob Costas) from another, less dogmatic age, where integrity and character counted, and where young journalists not emerging, Stepford-like, from Ivy-League brain-finishing journalism schools, are actually welcomed for their truly different viewpoints. These guys are real leaders of men, and Goldberg captures them perfectly.
Arrogance is not a book for the brain-washed brain-dead, or for anyone unafraid to use their God-damned God-given ability to think coherently, incisively, or to recognize that actions, even those with good intent, can have serious consequences. The media elites Goldberg mistrusts are going to hate this book---but it clearly has the ring of truth from an obviously honest guy who has been on the inside for a very long time.
Rating:
Summary: Make up your own mind
Review: Freedom of the Press is rightly enshrined because it gives you and me free access to all the happenings around us. The theory is that an informed public will do a good job of choosing its leaders and ensuring its survival. Bernard Goldberg makes the argument that we are being misled by the press. If you value your own freedom, read this book and make up your own mind. This is not a time for kneejerk reactions. Read the book for yourself.
| 
