Rating: 
Summary: Arrogance indeed...
Review: This book might have better sales if the author labeled it an autobiography instead of his same old, same old whining about the so called liberal press. It might also help if he used some originality. For a guy who hates the media so he sure gets a lot of publicity.
Rating: 
Summary: Goldberg's ARROGANCE: Calm Reason & Logic Prevail
Review: When the left and right take pot shots at one another, the number of those who can explain their position in a way that does not degenerate into mudslinging and still manages to convince is limited to just one: Bernard Goldberg. Those on the left: Alterman, Brock, and Franken and those on the right: Coulter, Hannity, and Savage often hide their points beneath excessive name calling and blunt sarcasm. In ARROGANCE, Goldberg's sequel to his earlier best-selling BIAS, he continues his assault on the stranglehold that the liberal media have on the news. The 'arrogance' of the title does not refer to the knowing smarmy feeling that the left crushes all opposition in a deliberate, cabalistic way. Rather, Goldberg points out with innumerable examples that the leftist television anchors and op ed writers of THE NEW YORK TIMES do not live in the world that the remaining 99% of other Americans do. Their world is a Manhattan that is populated exclusively by graduates of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. It is no surprise, then, that one might spend an entire day at work and not meet even one media person whose world view does not vary from your own. The result is that such media types do not see themselves as 'liberal' at all. Instead, they view themselves as 'centrist' or 'middle of the road.' In such an environment, anyone who reaches for an opposing view is squashed in no time at all. The ringleader, of course, is THE NEW YORK TIMES, whose op ed pages fuel the nation's major television stations: CBS, ABC, and NBC. Goldberg draws on the recent Jayson Blair scandal to emphasize how the TIMES has morphed into a left-leaning ideologically driven newspaper that mentions diversity as a goal but does nothing to achieve it. Goldberg takes the TIMES to task by its considering the hiring of Jayson Blair, an Afro-American journalist, as an outstanding example of the TIMES's effort to acquire diversity. To Goldberg, diversity ought to mean more than changing the color of the skin of the TIMES's writers. True diversity, he urges, comes more from a spectrum of political philosophies than from a spectrum of race. At the end of his book, Goldberg lists a series of steps that he believes would break this bear hug that the left has on the media. Unfortunately, in the real world, the left is not even likely to accomplish step one--to face up to the problem--let alone do something about it. Yet, his very listing of these 12 steps is likely to let the readers of THE NEW YORK TIMES know that if its writers and editors do not even make a token attempt to achieve a fair and balanced presentation of the news, then the previous hegemonic position that the TIMES used to hold will vanish even more quickly than its diminishing readership.
Rating:
Summary: Liberal Bias
Review: I give this 5 stars for the commentary alone. Any book that has been bashed due to an insignifican error about fly fishing has to be a great book! I have just ordered it and can't wait to read it!
Rating:
Summary: UTTER WASTE OF TIME --- IT'S ME, BERNIE THE GREAT! ME, ME,
Review: Goldberg's biggest complaint hasn't got anything to with the left or the right. It's that people don't pay enough attention to him -- Bernie Goldberg, Renaissance man and all around genius and wonderful person!Maybe we do need rescuing from the Media Elite. Most of them are egomaniacs. Just don't forget that Bernie was and is one of them. He's burned a few bridges to settle some personal scores in his two books, but what the hell, he's found another way to get paid without having to put up with bosses. Along with all the other people who get to put polmics like this. It's how they make money, from the Amen Chorus. Goldberg cites junk science and polls getting attention. Some of it gets on the air. The problem is that there's junk from all quarters. Goldberg along with other right wingers just add to the clutter. Goldberg's wants you to believe this book was written beause you aren't smart enough to know BS when you see it. No. It was written because Bernie needs the money and he knows exactly what crowd he's selling into. So contribute to the "It's me, Bernie the Great Fund."
Rating: 
Summary: Bias vs. Propaganda
Review: I'm at a bit of a loss to comment very much on Mr. Golderg's book directly: I read it, and I found it modestly entertaining. Entertaining? Well, yes. I really can't think of another good reason to read this sort of book in 2003. Goldberg's rendition of the weary thesis that something called "liberals" dominate the national news media - and that such a presumed malady really, really matters in the third decade of the so-called "Reagan Revolution" - is somewhere in the upper middle range of these kinds of prior efforts, and naturally unlikely (and probably unintended) to change anyone's mind, one way or the other. It's just another in a growing, standardized line of polemical setpiece money-makers. If you want to get a little angry for a little while REGARDLESS of your point-of-view, read it. Then read next month's entry in this lucrative genre to get up-to-speed on NEXT month's fleeting talking-points, and to fan the dying embers all over again. If you would prefer to try something TRULY contructive in this context, think about my title: How are these things the same, and in what important ways do they differ? In what important ways do they actually OPPOSE each other? What 'side' is grudgingly and more or less reluctantly and occasionally afflicted with one, in spite of continual efforts to do better, and what 'side' is deliberately, joyously, consciously, methodically, and constantly employing the other? Which side has trouble SEEING the objective truth while endeavoring at least to look for it, and which side doesn't CARE about the truth? Which has more genuinely destructive effects on intelligent debate and informed opinion? It seems to me that if you think about these two concepts in this way, it's possible you'll conclude (as I have) that there ARE truly important issues in the conduct of modern mass-media, but they are not the ones that Mr. Goldberg sees. I think it's possible you'll conclude (as I have) that Mr. Goldberg is somewhere nearer to being a part of the problem than he is to being a part of the solution.
Rating:
Summary: another excellent piece of competent balanced reporting
Review: oh, wow! i had forgotten who Goldberg was, but when i saw a column of this book at the store, i was relieved! the title, the subtitle... so, perusing it, i was really really suprised to see little to no mention of the rich and elite Clear Channel radio monopoly, the Rupert Murdoch rich and elite media empire, the arrogance and insufferable elitism pouring out of the smiling, condescending, pink-in-the-face, worst-excuse-for-journalists-ever Fox news commentators and anchors... surely some of this merited coverage... and 'Rescuing America"? i thought we were on the right course with Bush in the White House... detaining people indefinately in a concentration camp, disregarding the Geneva convention (surely, our troops will never feel the backlash from this sort of treatment. nope.), not protecting our harbours, not checking incoming cargo, liberating the unborn from the dastardly un-Catholic (uh, un-American. oh wait, is there a difference anymore? next 4 years, next 4 years...) females, protecting the sanctity of marraige by illegalizing divorce... erm, i mean, by condemning same-gender marraige. yeah. i don't see any need for Rescuing America at all. no way.
Rating:
Summary: Poor research, badly written, repetitive
Review: I had hoped this book would provide some better understanding of the media, but it turned out to be some sort of flaming vendetta against ceratain media outlets. There is no research in this book and very little original thinking. He just repeats over and over that the "media is liberal" and cherry picks quotes to support this. I was hoping for more.
Rating:
Summary: NEVER MORE TIMELY THAN NOW - READ IT!
Review: Take your network news with a pinch - or maybe a pound! - of salt. Mr. Goldberg presents a reasoned, intelligent argument for what most thinking people suspected already; that the news you get from the network and print giants is inevitable colored by the prevailing leftist politics. (Am I the only one who wonders why Frank Rich is actually still in the Arts Section, when his shrill anti-Republican rants have as much to do with the arts as they do with, say, cooking?) If you didn't read the first book, BIAS, read this; if you did read BIAS, you probably already have.
Rating:
Summary: I second the Daily Howler posters
Review: Well, I was going to post a review that mentioned the Daily Howler's excellent articles on this book, but I see I have already been beaten to it. I don't, however, notice any comments from those who like the book as to their opinions of the articles written by Bob Somerby at that website. You really should check them out; they may change at least some of your opinions of Goldberg.
Rating:
Summary: EVEN BETTER THAN HIS LAST BEST SELLER
Review: If Mr. Goldberg needed to provide any further evidence that media bias exists, the best example would be the fact that this book, which is even better than BIAS, hasn't been reviewed in the New York Times - despite the fact that his last book was on the best seller list forever, and this one made its debut there last week! I mean, come on - Al Franken is a more important writer? Anyway, this would be a perfect holiday gift for your liberal friends (assuming you've got 'em) and relations; a very civilized, well-organized and abundantly convincing examination of institutionalized meadi's leftward slant, with some revealing interviews. It's a terrific book.
|
