|
 Having read Bernard Goldberg's book, "Bias," I found his latest, "Arrogance" to be a logical and informative sequel.The issue I have with "Arrogance" is in its introduction wherein the author pays misguided (in my view) homage to, ironically, two liberals - Ralph Nader and Walter Cronkite. One perk that goes with being on this planet as many years as I have is that the history surrounding these two individuals is something I lived and witnessed. For example, Nader's book, "Unsafe at any Speed," focused on a car, when it should have zeroed in on those drivers who shouldn't have been allowed a tricycle. The title should have been, "Unsafe in any Car." His noblesse oblige cause - in his own sanctimonious, self-righteous mind - was to save the world from everything from cars he deemed unsafe to unhealthy eating habits - like the time, early in his "career" when he was reportedly having lunch at a restaurant in Princeton, NJ. Seated nearby was a total stranger who made the mistake of using refined sugar in view of know-it-all Nader. Nader thus began to loudly berate and embarrass this poor soul in front of other patrons, going on about the ill effects of refined sugar. Refined sugar aside, ask yourselves this question, vis-ý-vis Nader's contributions to our society - which included mandated flexible hood ornaments on cars, lest some pedestrian be impaled - do you now feel safer on the nation's highways. As for Walter Cronkite, he always was and remains a self-centered buffoon who should have retired his tongue when he retired from the Networks. If you were to put Cronkite on the liberal end of a see-saw, and holier-than-thou Jerry Falwell on the opposite end, the beam would be perfectly balanced on its fulcrum. Bottom line- two windbags at opposite end of a social spectrum, neither one of whom is worth the time of any thinking person. The point being, the author, in my view, contaminated his work with his misguided tribute to a couple of blowhard empty suits.
This easy-reading and thought provoking book presents coverage of the news that you won't find in the corporate controlled media. When you read of hear their stories, measure them by asking: who benefits from this? How often do they advance democracy and the power of the people? You will gain wisdom and understanding of the special interests behind the news. Most of all, do not depend on just one source. BG shows how the networks are mostly like peas in a pot, and copy from the Establishment's newspaper of record, all the news that is printed to fit their agenda. BG's book seems to be repetitive in spots, and could use better editing. The chapters are unnumbered. The chapter on pages 185-196 has suppressed news that you should read. "Political correctness" is the new word for "thought control" (p.1). This is as old as civilization. Manhattan is the headquarters of the ruling classes (banking, insurance, shipping, merchants, advertising, publications, broadcasting, etc.) since the 1880s (p.2). Why does BG quote Andrew Sullivan (p.3)? BG questions the "vast liberal conspiracy" phrase on page 4, but doesn't mention the National Association of Editors and Publishers! The denial of "liberal bias" seems to imply the media elite cannot admit their control by the owners (p.6). If reporters don't know whether they're Republicans or Democrats it could mean they're ducking a purge! Page 7 mentions the propaganda spouters on talk radio, but doesn't mention who pays for this. Are they cheaper than the music they replaced? Page 9 asks why there is "no current liberal talk show host"; this in a book that talks about bias? Page 10 mentions "art" that offends sensible people, but dares not say that corporations paid for it! George Orwell's "1984" told where the opposition was controlled by the ruling class. Does this apply to arguments between Democrats and Republicans, who are the equivalent of professional sports teams? Its usually the public that loses from these battles (Bush's "massive tax cuts for the rich" on page 11). You can measure this by the decline in personal wealth since the Nixon Administration. BG's comparison of ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS to Fox is so outrageously biased as to need no comments (p.12). I wouldn't trust BG to shuffle a card deck! BG is also wrong in his reference to Sherlock Holmes ("Silver Blaze") on page 14.
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. |
"Arrogance" would be just another nail in the liberal press coffin except for one sterling chapter. In the middle of the book, Bernard Goldberg interviews Bob Costas about media sports coverage, bias, and political correctness. Costas is a self- acknowledged liberal on most political matters, but when he discusses how the national media handles blacks and females in sports, he plows new ground and sounds like a conservative. His explanations about the misbehavior of black professional athletes (and how the press refuses to mention it) is worth the price of the book. Costas explains himself with such great examples and such clarity that I have read that chapter at least four times already. It is a chapter that should be reprinted in every sports magazine.
If you truly wish to learn what the media elite is and what is factual news, watch FOX News Channel for Bias News and CNN for semi unbiased news, and C-SPAN for fair news.
