Rating: 
Summary: On Beyond Bias
Review: A funny, easy read, but lots of heft, too. In particular, I liked the chapters on the journalist identity-politics associations and the Columbia School of Journalism. Re: the former -- Goldberg points out that journalists who belong to any of these groups (black journalist associations, gay journalists associations, women journalist associotions, and so on and so on ...) have compromised their objectivity immediately and have no place in any newsroom. He's right. They should be banned outright. Or else consigned to the editorial page (or TV equivalent) and identified as a partisan. Good step one for rooting out bias in the newsroom.Also -- Columbia Journalism School -- what's the story there??? If this is where networks and elite papers are recruiting, no wonder news has such a pc-undergraduate feel to it. Lots of good stuff. Plus, Goldberg is funny & doesn't take himself too seriously. I also like the fact that this isn't a ranting, name-calling romp through the mud.
Rating:
Summary: If you care about the news ...
Review: It's interesting that the only business journalists don't report on ... the only one they apprently think is off limits ... is their own. That's arrogance -- and thanks to Bernard Goldberg we get a solid, hard look inside the establishment media and its entrenched biases. This is a thoughtful and reasonable book that open-minded readers --no matter what their politics -- will find eye-opening. The interviews with Tim Russert and Bob Costas are superb. If you believe that the the news business is one of the most important institutions in America ... then Arrogance makes it all the way to must read status.
Rating: 
Summary: A valuable contribution to the nation's discussion on media
Review: This book is not a simple repetition of "Bias" as some claim. That book had a huge impact on the national dialogue on the media and there have been many responses to Mr. Goldberg's first book. This book is his recounting of the reaction he faced in talking about "Bias" around the country. It also includes new material and examples of the way many in the mainstream media still don't grasp the way they bias their reporting. The author says many times that it is not a conspiracy, but a result of a kind of blinkered view of the world that many of that culture share because they only talk to each other. My suspicion is that this book will be more widely read by those who already agree with the author than by those who reject the thesis he presented in "Bias". In other words, those who would benefit the most by reading it won't. But isn't that they way of the world? I enjoyed this book and found some interesting and fun stuff. While I believe "Bias" to be required reading for anyone who wants to talk about the media, this book is a good way to flesh out the discussion about that book and the responses to it. It is not a repetition of the same material. By the nature of what it discusses there will be a certain similarity. But here he spends more time talking about and provides examples of the flat rejection of his first book's thesis by the media elite. He has a great interview with the wonderful Tim Russert, and he even provides 12 steps for media types who want to provide a more balanced reporting style regardless of their personal views. I found the step on expanding your Rolodex quite useful. The book doesn't take long to read and is written the way Mr. Goldberg talks. There is a good index. If you are interested in this national discussion, this is a very good contribution to the ongoing debate and worth a few hours of your time.
Rating:
Summary: Just Get it
Review: If you liked bias you will love this one.
If didn't like bias you will hate this book.
If you have not read either then what are you waiting for
get both.
Rating: 
Summary: he could have done a better job
Review: Goldberg, in trying to show liberal bias, which does exist in the media, is focusing on many minor issues that he interprets as liberal bias. Rather than work a few good examples, he does an Ann Coulter and envokes a long list of examples, some true, some not, some important, some not, that support his view. We already have Ann Coulter in the role of conservative media watch dog. What is more important and what a journalist like Goldberg should be able to do with ease, since he researched stories in his previous life, is to identify where mainstream media does go wrong and how the reader / viewer can detect such bias. Is there a common theme in how mainstream media does research and report news to influence the reader? The recently cited study in the Wall Street Journal comes to mind that details the naming of congress members as liberal and conservative. How does a breaking story evolve into a biased story as it is picked up by more newspapers across the country? Jim Pinkteron once said that changing one word is sometimes enough to introduce / show bias. Goldberg should use an important story and expand the body of his research to give a more detailed account on the origin of the bias and how it is expanded as the news goes from breaking story to evening newscast.
Credit to Goldberg for showing hints of this process in this book, but overall the book still lacks detail and sufficient research to lift the contents from coffee hour / Oprah book club quality to critical analysis of media coverage.
Rating:
Summary: What do you want from your nightly newscast or newspaper?
Review: Bernie Goldbergs book ARROGANCE, is a worthwhile read whether you are a liberal or consider yourself to be a conservative. It should be of special interest to those who view the Nightly News broadcasts from all the major news outlets. Mr. Goldberg, a veteran news reporter, reminds the reader that news reporters whether they are working for a television station, radio station, newspaper or magazine should offer unbiased objective accounts of the news stories of the day without an agenda. Mr.Goldberg offers numerous examples of how news stories (Television and Print)are designed to have the viewer or reader think or respond in a certain manner. What we need are news reporters who are willing to tell it like it is. This is what they should be striving for. We already have commentators on both the Right & the Left who are very willing to argue for or against a certain topic or promote an agenda. Is this too much to ask? Anyway, Bernie Goldberg does not think so. How about you? Mr. Goldberg offers remedies that may appear to be somewhat humorous, but are worth the read. This book, like Mr. Goldberg's book BIAS, should be required reading for journalists, those studying journalism, and for those who truly want to know the TRUTH.
Rating: 
Summary: Part II of Biased
Review: REDUNDANT and superfluous pontification by an arrogant author. Goldberg writes about numerous other media personalities and how bad they are in an attempt to placate his own ego. An objective reader will gather a vendita against CBS by Goldberg. This book is just another of many, cashing $$$ in on the recent band wagon against the liberal media. Any critical thinker will conduct their own analysis on the presented data, regardless of the source. Do so with this book.
Rating:
Summary: Goldberg's Biases
Review: As a couple of reviewers have already suggested, check out the weblog, dailyhowler.com, which demonstrates that Goldberg misuses quotations to manufacture controversy. Latest example: Howell Raines, former NY Times editor, is accused of writing that Ronald "Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it." Goldberg's flawed source for this statement, the Media Resource Center, took Raines' comments about Reagan's domestic policies, on page 56 of his book, _Fly Fishing Through The Midlife Crisis_, inserted an ellipsis, then tacked on a comment from page 84, in which an expert fisherman evaluates the fly fishing skills of Presidents Carter and Reagan. In other words, Raines never made the statement at all. And the statement has nothing to do with Reagan's political ability. An expert fisherman is simply saying that Reagan can't tie flies! An ellipsis ties together statements by two different people, separated by twenty-eight pages. This one example shows that the Media Resource Center is flawed and that Goldberg is a lazy former journalist who doesn't check his sources. Instead, he eagerly swallows any hint of liberal bias in the media. Ignore this book. Go for thorough, honest research and purchase Eric Alterman's _What Liberal Media?_.
Rating:
Summary: We're All Biased, But How We Deal With It is the Question.
Review: People fall all across the political spectrum in this world. They simply have to have basic beliefs about government, god, law, etc. that give context to their opinions. There happens to be a correlation between education and more liberal views. This correlation does not prove causality, but education may make one more liberal. Cause and effect is not a question we can answer here. Guess what? Most journalists are highly educated so they have a liberal bent, for whatever reason. If you criticize the left leaning media, they will adjust and make the effort to better represent all sides. That is their ultimate goal, to present a fair and balanced picture. They don't always succeed but that is their goal. If they are criticized, any good journalist will look at him/her self and examine the job they are doing. They respect everyone's right to be heard and will make an honest effort to represent everyone. This cannot be said to be as important a value to the right, in general. Fox News simply responds to the liberal bent in the media by only presenting certain points of view and not accepting criticism or alternate points of view. The media may have a liberal bent, but they are make an honest effort to let everyone be heard and they will accept criticism. As an extreme example, A Muslim journalist in Iraq sees the world a lot different from any American journalist. That doesn't make one of them wrong or right. The question is who will fight to try to bring balance and fight for the right to have alternate points of view. The ACLU is probably considered by most to be "liberal" and they will go to the mat for everyone's right to be heard. Of course there is bias in reporting. We all had to come from somewhere. The liberals, in general, are the one's who will encourage you to read as many different sources of news to form your own opinion. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh will just tell you how wrong you are. Al Franken on the other hand will point out lies and distortions on the right by using old fashion hardcore journalism. Liberal bias my ass.
Rating:
Summary: Compelling and Important but Flawed
Review: Bernard Goldberg's "Arrogance" is a sequel of sorts to his first excellent book "Bias." Rather than rehashing the content of "Bias," the author expands on ubiquitous liberal bias in the media. Goldberg discusses a new line-up of leftist cheerleaders in the media like Howell Raines and fabricator Jayson Blair at the New York Times; Stephen Glass, who, like Blair, specialized in inventing facts, not reporting them; the superficially hopeless Katie Couric and Maureen Dowd; Carole Simpson of ABC and Nina Burleigh of Time Magazine. Not surprisingly each of these often do not pretend to have a very liberal agenda all the while telling the public with a straight face that their tremedous biases do not influence their commentary and daily news decisions. Some of Goldberg's topics include: - A lengthy discussion about coverage of various kidnappings that mysteriously were all of white girls. When the kidnapping of a black girl was finally covered, what the media failed to report reveals much about their liberal agenda. - Hillary Clinton, the patroness of the liberal media. Whether it is Barbara Walters, Leslie Stahl, or Eleanor Clift, no one dares to ask any difficult questions of the former First lady, and much like the rest of the media, they never fail to gush adoringly over Clinton regardless of her very flawed and potentially criminal past. - The shameful treatment of Paula Jones who, when accusing the former President of sexual harassment, was maligned as "trash." Juanita Broaddrick, too, was ignored or mistreated because of her accusations of rape against Bill Clinton during his Arkansas days. - The near "lynching" of Justice Clarence Thomas. Not surprisingly, Anita Hill's story and details were not to be questioned while Thomas's reputation was ruined. - Feminists iron grip on the media, and how much they dictate the details and discussion about gender and children's issues. - The gay and lesbian lobby's major influence on the media's handling of the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal. Included here are very thoughtful and informative interviews that Goldberg conducted with Bob Costas and Tim Russert, and a "12 step program" for finally correcting rampant liberal bias in the news. While Goldberg's suggestions are somewhat interesting, one wonders if ANYONE at ABC, NBC, or CBS would even consider anything Goldberg would have to say. (For the liberal media, there is no problem at all!) One annoying flaw in "Arrogance" is Goldberg's tone. He could not decide whether to be informal or formal. At times, he sounded as if he is speaking to old friends at a bar. Also, there is something terribly strange about a very experienced journalist who writes about liberal media bias publishing his book through AOL-TIME-WARNER. Doesn't this mega-corporation usually DEFINE the media of blind liberal bias? What was Goldberg THINKING?
| 
