Weapons of Mass Distortion : The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media

Rating:
Summary: After the last election, I don't see how anyone can disagree
Review: Nothing could be clearer after the last election than the left-leaning bias of the liberal press. If there is anything we have learned from that election it's that you can't trust or believe one word written in many of the major newspapers in America. Newspapers including the L.A. Times, New York Times, and the Washington Post, which barely qualifies as a newspaper, and many others made absolutely no attempt to be honest, fair, objective, or newsworthy. They ran a campaign for Kerry in the name of a newspaper, with an unending, unrelenting series of negative "news reports", writing articles on anything and everything they could find to show whatever they thought would undermine the Republican candidate.
Some committed left-wingers like the reviewer Carmen J. Lopez, "Couldn't be more off", October 27, 2004, demonstrate the same kind of dishonesty that exists in the press. No one could have lived through that election without seeing the glaringly obvious anti-Bush rhetoric. It's no wonder there is such a rift in our society; people can't even be honest when the proof is in black and white.




Rating:
Summary: More Al Franken-ish Nonsense
Review: OK. I have now read Al Franken and Bozell. I find both books to be of similar value; which is to say no value. If you are a conservative then you will find lots to agree with in Bozell's book. You will also find much that you need to ignore. Franken's book is only slightly worse.

The first problem that I have with both books is the evidence they use. They often use evidence that is either annecdotal or case study. Anecdotal evidence has always been known to be of little value; furthermore, any researcher will tell you that case study research, while popular on both sides of the political spectrum, is only one half-step from anecdotal evidence. Also regarding evidence, both books use studies generated by think tanks, which is also problematic. Left or Right think-tanks have an answer they are looking for, and they then search for the evidence to 'prove' their result, which they derived before they started. Both sides hurl studies and statictics at us, with the all too common effect of making Joe Six-Pack feel more faith and passion in football reporting.

Second, these authors both are so biased that anything they say is bound to be bogus. In this sense I will give the edge to Franken because his book's title gives readers a chance to see his bias immediately. I find that Bozell is reluctant to dismiss his authority directly, although he implies his impartiality in almost every paragraph. I do think that Bozell is onto something when he states that he is dicsussing 'newsrooms' not 'news programs,' though not in the way he intended. Bozell, begrudingly and indirectly, concedes that conservatives dominate talk shows and programs, while liberals dominate the news reporting. Bozell decries this as unacceptable, but really, doesn't that seem like a fair trade to you?

Third, both men are ignorant reagrding basic economics (or perhaps not). Economics is widely depedant upon statistics, and statictics can submitted and omitted to paint a ugly or pretty picture. Economic statistics are not meant to taken in part. As one example (the quickest one to explain), Bozell uses medain income as proof in the 1980s of the economic success of the Reagan years. Any time you see the words 'average' or 'median,' perks your ears because you are about to be deceived. If Bill Gates moves into your neighborhood, your nieghborhood's median income just went through the roof and you are not any richer. It is possible for median income to rise while the majority gets poorer. Franken, on the other hand will point to huge deficts for future generations to pay off, while ignoring the potential benefits and successes that accompany them. Remember Hoover, "all I want is for someone to find me a one-handed economist."

In conclusion, this book is the conservative version of Al Franken. Franken is more fun (he did write for SNL for eons), while Bozell's book attempts to be more factual. Both books are biased in the extreme. Both books can be completley dismanted, paragraph by paragraph, if one had the time and energy. Both had an answer before they asked questions. Both books do a disservice to their political positions.

The fact that both are unhappy with the media is the best endorsment for the media I have heard yet.


Rating:
Summary: Prophetic
Review: That there is a strong liberal bias in the mainstream media may be no surprise to you but, after reading Brent Bozell's "Weapons of Mass Distortion", you'll never watch another ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN story, or read the front page of the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., without recalling this hard-hitting expose. Backed by exhaustive research, Bozell recounts case-after-case backed by statistic- after-statistic of how the media distorts the news to promote their biased points-of-view. The media elite, Bozell correctly contents, sanctimoniously assumes the exalted position of America's cultural and moral arbiter and watchdog, positioning minority views as mainstream. Meanwhile, conservatives are consistently labeled and derided -blatantly or more subtlety - while liberals and liberal causes are given a free pass. But more than simply distorting the news as reported, Bozell cites numerous examples - the 2000 Presidential Election, Elian Gonzalez, the war of terrorism - where the media actually influences events rather than simply reporting them. "Weapons of Mass Distortion" takes head-on the ludicrous claims of Al Franken and Eric Altman that there is in fact a conservative bias to the news. Not that further proof is needed, but the recent CBS "memo gate" debacle, and the even more recent ABC memo clearly instructing favorable coverage for Kerry at Bush's expense, again validates the truth of Bozell's words.

Fast moving, well paced, and well written, this is still a frustrating book. Frustrating in the sense that, despite gains by cable channels like Fox News, alternative press like The Washington Times and The New York Post, and more balanced news accessible on the Internet, the old media still maintains a stranglehold on much of America's audience, shaping thought and opinion to coincide with the minority views of the media establishment. While Bozell ends with a chapter describing the growth in alternate news channels coming at the expense of the old guard, and the "meltdown" of the Liberal Media, one can only hope that change comes before irreparable harm in done.