Rating: 
Summary: Confirms Everything I Already Knew About The Liberal Media
Review: Bernie Goldberg's book already confirms everything I knew about the liberal media. But what he did is give us all a behind-the-scenes look at the left and why they want to slant certain stories to their liking and just how far they will go to do it. I never take the Network News at their word and now I am ten-times more skeptical that anything they say is the truth.Kudos to Bernie Goldberg for an excellent book that needed to be written.
Rating: 
Summary: Bias Part II: This Time It's Personal!
Review: Long ago, William F. Buckley asserted that liberals claim to want to give an airing to "other views", but are then shocked and appalled that there _are_ other views. More recently, Jonah Goldberg said that the word "conservative" in the news media has contracted to simply mean the position you the reader are meant to disapprove of. Both quotes could serve as epigraphs for _Arrogance_. This book is billed as a prescription for remedies of liberal media bias. It is not. It is a second helping of exposure of journalistic malfeasance on the part of the New York Times and the big three networks. What pointers Goldberg does offer come toward the end, and even then are merely hooks upon which to hang more indictments. It's clear that the publishers, who may be liberal themselves but aren't allergic to the profits a sequel to a conservative bestseller would bring, wanted Goldberg to serve up lots more of the same. In one of her books Ann Coulter noted how reviewers had for years and years referred to popular conservative books as "surprise bestsellers." A surprise to who? Not to Warner Books anymore, not with the bills to pay on that Time-Warner merger with AOL! To liberals, Bernard Goldberg may be a traitor, but the attempts by some of them to paint him as a hack or a phony have fallen flat. You have to be very good to stay on at the the major networks for nearly thirty years, as Goldberg did. The efforts to smear him merely give more credence to his charge of herd mentality. It's an important distinction that Goldberg insists on: there is no secret liberal media NKVD, keeping everyone in line. Rather, it's a case of "birds of a feather flock together". Regardless of how educated or smart or possessed of goodwill people may be, they are still taken aback, at least momentarily, if it slips out that one of their number does not share their worldview. Now replace the set of educated, smart people of goodwill with self-impressed, arrogant products of politically correct Blue State journalism schools, and you can see the trouble coming a mile off. Goldberg goes easy on the statistics and heavy on the dismaying anecdotes. Indeed, if some people continue to dismiss his work as "anecdotal", you can be sure that that means they are nervous that the peasants might be listening. His chapters are arranged thematically: race, feminism, sports, etc. His tone is a rather yammery blend of sarcasm and incredulity, but the sympathetic reader can take this as proof of how outraged he is over how far his profession's standards have fallen. Frequently, he pauses in his description of how a particular story was misreported, to distance himself from the issue or the principals. His only goal is improving journalism, he says, not joining the right-wing media watchdogs. (Though truth to tell, another watchdog of Goldberg's experience and savvy surely wouldn't hurt.) The book appeared before a couple of recent media feeding frenzies, which would have fit right in. As I write, the national press corps is running Democratic National Committee talking points as breaking news, making a story out of the quality of President Bush's denials of decades-old and still unproven allegations of being AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. At the same time they are stonewalling for the moment allegations of infidelity on the part of the current Democrat frontrunner. In the internet age, it won't work. Denial is just a river in Egypt, thanks to the internet--and Bernard Goldberg.
Rating:
Summary: Splendid Criticism of Media from Bernard Goldberg
Review: "Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite" may sound like a rather presumptuous title, but thankfully, it isn't. Instead, it is replete with well reasoned arguments from someone whom I would regard as a classical Liberal, Bernard Goldberg, whose libertarian sentiments have more in common with the Founding Fathers of the United States than with those on the Left who may claim their legacy. Indeed, I think it is a better book than "Bias", simply because Goldberg goes further in describing the current state of Left-leaning bias in American media, describing in depth not only the foibles of The New York Times, but also those at his former employer CBS, and other network television entities such as ABC, NBC, and CNN. He offers thoughtful conversations with Tim Russert and Bob Costas; both of whom not surprisingly concur with Goldberg's view of a rampant Left-leaning bias within American media. And, to my amazement, has an intriguing "Twelve Step" program at the book's end which may help end Leftist hegemony of the media, by creating instead a more intellectually diverse America media that is more truly reflective of the people of the United States. Goldberg may lack the literary eloquence of an Ann Coulter or a Ben Stein, but his points are made succinctly, with ample evidence to support his views. Not only do I look forward to reading yet another book by Goldberg on this subject, but hopefully, look forward too to seeing some constructive action done by the America media in support of it.
Rating:
Summary: Just finished reading it last night.
Review: This is a very good book. His writing style leaves something to be desired, but the content of the book makes up for it.
As stated in "Bias" it is not so much what the elite media reports, it is mostly what they DO NOT report, and the overwhelmingly biased way they present the news.
Rating:
Summary: Dan Rather and Eason Jordan............
Review: are just two examples of what Goldberg is talking about. They are only the tip of the iceberg. The media is polluted with left-wingers; there are few true liberals. As time goes on, Goldberg will be further vindicated. It's time to clean up the media and Hollywood right along with them.
Rating:
Summary: An Important Work From A True Insider
Review: Although I enjoyed Goldberg's earlier "Bias," I actually think that this is the stronger book. Goldberg is not a conservative firebrand, in fact he is philosophically more libertarian and describes himself as an old fashioned liberal, a point that most authors critical of the press can't honestly make. His advantage is being able to give first-hand testimony to actions of others in the media, and while this book was written before the enormous faux pas of "Rathergate" (in which Dan Rather used suspect sources prior to the 2004 election in an attempt to smear President Bush, which not only backfired, but further denuded the network media of credibility, not to mention possibly costing him his job) I have no doubt that Goldberg would be completely unsurprised by those events.
The book is not simply a rehash of "Bias," but goes further to the heart of big media bias, with many insightful examples of skewed reporting in the post-9/11 world, such as the mandate by Reuters that reporters not use the term "terrorist" to describe the 9/11 perpetrators (and other terrorists) evidently on the grounds that it is inflammatory and portrays them in a negative light (well, duh), demonstrating that liberal bias in the media is not restricted to the US. He also details the newest line of nonsense from the big media wonks, that there is actually a right wing bias in the media. As ridiculous as that premise sounds, it has recently been said many times, mostly since Fox news has become more popular. Goldberg does acknowledge some right wing bias at Fox, and although some have critiqued the book for not pursuing that lead further, I believe he handled it well inasmuch as conservative bias is not a central part of his thesis, and also because the Fox news audience is dwarfed by network news audiences.
The book isn't perfect, and occasionally I detect a bit of a "noble martyr" tone in the book (even though that's true, modesty goes a long way) though it doesn't detract overall from the material presented. I highly recommend this book as well as "Bias" to obtain an inside view of the slanting of the news. While imperfect, both books are vital and worthy of being read by anyone who claims to care about bias in the media.
Rating:
Summary: Enlightened
Review: Was hard to put down, enjoyed almost every minute. The media has slowly made it's way to the point it's at now, and the people are fed up with it. Was in a way unexpected hearing this voice coming out of the CBS world. This is an insiders witness to the elite media. Smooth read. Contains interveiw with Bob Costas. Not just for Conservatives!
Rating:
Summary: Why can't they give us just the facts?
Review: In this very timely sequel to his previous book Bias Bernard Goldberg picks up where he left off, describing some of the reaction and fallout to his earlier book. As you would suspect, there was a lot of bias involved there too. Bernard Goldberg knows the TV news business like no outsider can. As a former news correspondent for CBS News for many years he can speak with great authority about the issue of liberal bias. Why did the news coverage of the refusal of the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay scout leaders suddenly end? What didn't the news industry tell the public about the sex scandals concerning Roman Catholic priests taking indecent liberties with young people? What really happened when the little black girl escaped last year from her kidnappers? What part of the story was left out when a couple of college students apprehended a deranged student who went on a rampage on their school campus resulting in several deaths and injuries? How exactly are racial issues handled by the news coverage of sports? What does NBC's Tim Russert have to say about media bias? These are examples of the kinds of material that Mr. Goldberg uses as he attempts to illustrate in great detail the pervasiveness of liberal bias in the news business and to describe the ways that political correctness affects the way news is currently covered and presented to the public. He then goes on to present some proposals for how to address this issue. He describes the pervasive tendency for people in the news business to seek refuge in denial. What liberal bias? Everybody knows that that is just another right wing canard, etc. He describes how threatened Big Media feels by the increasing success of Fox News and conservative radio, to the point where Big Media executives often now make the claim that there is actually a RIGHT WING bias in news reporting, and that THIS is the greatest problem for the future of the news industry. Well, they are certainly correct that this development is a threat to THEIR future. Bernard Goldberg is perhaps one of the most important whistleblowers of our time. For those of you who really DO want the facts this book is a good place to start looking for them.
Rating: 
Summary: Not very convincing
Review: "Liberal elite" seems to be the new straw man of the neo-cons, but I don't see any strong evidence of it. Many newscasters come from the midwest, like Tom Brokaw, and Fox News seems to be an arm of the Republican Party. Goldberg has not convinced me that this elitism is why the Democrats lost the election (and not by a landslide; this is hardly the mandate that Bush seems to think it is ... come to think of it, that is really arrogance). If we had had a better candidate, if we had been more effective in getting the youth vote out, etc., the Dems could have won this race. To say that the liberals do not understand the "common man" (and rich, pampered George Bush does?) is nonsense. Clinton had a real empathy with people (granted, he was more middle of the road).
The Dems can win elections without the South (which became Republican in reaction to Pres. Kennedy and Johnson's advocacy of civil rights)and without the Religious Right. To try to pander to them, as the Republicans do, is the wrong way to go. This is still the party of Roosevelt, and we have the same goals and visions. Four more years of the Republicans ought to prove to America that the Bush administration does not know what it is doing and refuses to admit its mistakes. That is ARROGANCE.
Rating: 
Summary: A very mixed bag.
Review: If one were to Google the quote referenced near the end of this book, that predicting is very difficult, especially about the future, one would quickly learn that, as I had thought, Neils Bohr said it, not Yogi Berra, as the author states (yes, it sounds like Yogi, but a good journalist would research his quotes before putting them in his book). Perhaps this is why Mr. Goldberg does not attribute too many of his quotes!
I do think that Mr. Goldberg makes some excellent points in this book, and, as a loyal reader of the New Yorker (which apparently automatically identifies me as a liberal), I accept and agree with some of his specific criticism of the elite media, which, in a nutshell, is that their attitudes towards particular issues influences how those issues are covered. However, his case is considerably weakened by his presentation. For one thing, while he has the gumption (which I give him credit for) to personally name names (particularly Dan Rather and some other CBS personnel) in discussing the attitudes of his past colleagues, he also makes many statements about how those colleagues despise and look down on their day to day viewers and what motivates them to watch the news. Very fascinating, but the only problem here is, he does NOT name names! Who says these things? Dan? The producers? The president of the company? This would have been interesting! While the author makes occasional references to specific quotes and attitudes, the book mostly repeats very general and broad statements about the media, with little direct attribution. More specifics and deeper examination of specific topics would have made for a much stronger case.
Another problem with the book is that, while the author admits that there are people and media on the right (Fox, for example?) who he does not agree with either, these statements are always made in passing, and never followed up on. I know, his subject is the media elites on the left, but this would have been a much more interesting book (albeit one that would have been harder to market to a certain audience) if it had examined media bias on both the left and the right, instead of just contributing to that whole media bias cavalcade without a hint of fairness and thoughtful consideration of all the mainstream media. Mr. Goldberg strikes me as someone who would admit, if pinned down, that Fox News and objectivity rarely meet in the same room, so why not present a fair and balanced journalistic examination of that bias? It would have strengthened his fairly weak case against those he does attack here.
Finally, while Mr. Goldberg's style is easy going and readable, it is also not particularly packed with information. He makes a point and spends two pages padding it out with questions and indignation. If one has read his first book, BIAS, as I have, his approach starts to become repetitious after a while, and I found myself scanning over the constant refrains. He finishes the book by listing Twelve Steps to changing the media bias landscape, and a serious, thoughtful list here would have been useful. Instead it reads like one more chance to bash those he attacks, and his ideas are simplistic and snide. A much (MUCH!) better, if drier, analysis of how journalists need to improve their approach to stories may be found in THE ELEMENTS OF JOURNALISM by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel. I would heartily recommend that you read that much more balanced and thoughtful book than starting with this one.
|
