Order from a Major Online Bookstore
Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine
Save Your Time And Money
| AnyBook4Less.com | Order from a Major Online Bookstore |
|
| Home | Store List | FAQ | Contact Us | | ||
| Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine Save Your Time And Money |
||
 |
Title: Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News by Bernard Goldberg ISBN: 0895261901 Publisher: Regnery Publishing Pub. Date: December, 2001 Format: Hardcover Volumes: 1 List Price(USD): $27.95 |
Average Customer Rating: 3.72
Rating: 5
Summary: Want more evidence? Look at this week's NYT Book Review!
Comment: To a certain extent, the charge of liberal bias can be hard to prove. Not only may it require delving into the mind of the news writer to ascertain intent and motive, but also because much of the evidence is anecdotal in nature. For example, the very subject that led to Mr. Goldberg's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal--Eric Engnerg's use words such as "elixir", "scheme" and "wacky" to describe Steve Forbes' flat tax plan--was anecdotal. Nevertheless, the anecdotal evidence, when piled one on top of another, can certainly be persuasive, and Goldberg himself is devastaingly effective every time he gives us an example of a comment (read: criticism, accusation, insult, etc.) by a liberal against a conservative which drew no reaction at all from the media, followed by his rhetorical question: Do you think the (non-)reaction would be the same if a similar comment was directed against someone from the left? The answer, inevitably, is no.
A good example of this technique is when Goldberg mused what would happen if Robert Novak had said: "I hope Jesse Jackson's wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease." These were the exact words directed by a USA Today columnist towards Clarence Thomas, which caused nary a stir.
Having just finished Goldberg's book, I was stunned (well, maybe I shouldn't have been), by several items I noticed in this week's New York Times Book Review, which demonstrate Goldberg's point in a way which Goldberg could not himself have improved upon. The bestseller list each week conists of the title, author and publisher of each book followed by a brief thumbnail summary of what the book is about. In this week's edition, of the 15 nonfiction bestsellers, there are three books in which the NYT writer uses quotation marks as part of the summary. The purpose of those quotation marks is clear: to make sure the reader understands (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that the writer of the summary (and by extension the Times itself) does NOT share the views of the author. Moreover, one of these three authors is specifically described as "right-wing" and another is specifically described as "conservative".
The first of these three books and the No. 1 bestseller is (surprise, surprise), this book. The NYT writer advises us that it is about "how the media distorts the news". The quotes are not mine; they are those of the writer so that he can subtly get his message across that Goldberg's views are NOT his (or her) views. The second book, at No. 7, is by Patrick Buchanan. (You can guess what's coming.) Here the Times advises us that this book is by a "right-wing pundit" (given the somewhat perjorative connotation of "pundit", the Times is here stringing two insults together) about the "immigrant invasions" that threaten Western culture. Again, the quotes here are not mine but from the Times writer--to remind us once again: "Hey my fellow erudite NYT East and West coast readers--those are PAT'S words, not ours!" The third book, coming in at No. 8, is from another darling of the left wing, Barbara Olson. Like Pat, she too gets the double whammy--the gratuitous identification of her political perspective, followed by the ever-present quotes. She is a "conservative commentator" (quotes mine, but words from the Times) who discusses "the last desperate abuses of power" (quotes from the NYT writer) in the Clinton White House. The quotes once again serve to remind us those those are BARBARA'S views, not ours! It is worth noting that none of the other blurbs contain any identification of the political leanings of the authors nor any gratuitous quotation marks to distinguish the authors' views from those of the Times. As Goldberg himself might say, it is hard to imagine the the Times describing any book by Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy as being written by a "left-winger" or a "liberal".
Finally, and as a segue from the issue of identification of one's philosophy, I mentioned earlier that liberal bias can be hard to prove because of its frequent reliance on the anecdotal story. However there is at least one way in which the bias can be demonstrated somewhat more empirically and that regards the use of the words "conservative", "right-wing", "liberal" and left-wing". The magazine Brill's Content actually did a study on this very issue by actually counting the number of times these terms appeared in the major print and television outlets over a several month period. It should come as no great shock to anyone that the terms "conservative" and "right wing" were used about 12 times more frequently than the terms "liberal" and "left wing". (We have already seen from this week's NYT Book Review that the score is 3-0.) How can one explain this, if not as evidence of bias? It would seem that Roger Ailes of Fox News had it right on target when he stated that, to the media, Americans fall into one of two categories--they are either moderates or right-wingers or right-wing nuts. With a mindset like this, it's no surprise that the words "left-wing" and "liberal" are heard so rarely from the major media outlets-if the world consists of moderates and right-wingers, those creatures, like dinosaurs, no longer exist.
Rating: 4
Summary: Finally . . .Verification!
Comment: Conservatives have been complaining for years about liberal media bias only to be ignored or told they're paranoid. Through the decades, the allegation remained the stuff of conservative mythology. But with the publication of "Bias" Bernard Goldberg became the first member of Big Media to step outside the fortress and admit the truth. He paid a price by being blacklisted at CBS.
The book gained a great deal of attention not only because it was the first crack in the fictitious edifice of "objective reporting", but also because it was published during the time of Fox News' ascension to the number one spot in cable news. If there were no media bias, then why were people flocking to the new option and it's center-right orientation in contrast to everything that existed before it?
Goldberg is at his best when he tells his own story of what happened when he published a Wall Street Journal column about media bias. We get insight into the inner workings of CBS news and how lonely Goldberg became when he ran afoul of "The Dan" aka Dan Rather. The second half of the book is more analytical with regard to the problem of media bias. The best part of the second half is Goldberg's chapter on the lack of reportage on family breakdown and its effects.
Rating: 5
Summary: Fantastic eye-opener
Comment: Bias was an eye-opening account of how the media naturally produces news that appears to have a liberal-left tilt. He demonstrates how short term ratings driven news content selection, attempting to appear sensitive and politically correct and pure ignorance lead to unobjective news.
Goldberg also argues that the newscasters honestly believe that they are being objective, but are often incapable of producing news that is fair and balanced.
Much of the book also deals with Goldberg's personal experiences inside CBS after writing an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, where he went public for the first time with his concerns. He argues that while CBS encouraged whistle blowers, even holding them up as heroes when they were appearing on their news programs; the attitude to public debate about bias at CBS was not acceptable. While some of these parts appear to be more about Goldberg letting off steam with his frustrations, it does provide some fantastic insights into understanding the internal politics of newsrooms, and his case is very well argued.
While Bernard Goldberg has not produced a perfect academic masterpiece in this book, this is clearly not the point. He has managed to put a voice to the true frustration that I, like so many other conservatives feel about the media. Even those who are liberal (Goldberg claims to be liberal himself) should read this book. Liberal's may not agree with Goldberg's prospective, but at the very least it will help them understand why conservatives feel so genuinely hostile about the objectivity of today's media.
 |
Title: Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right by Ann H. Coulter ISBN: 1400046610 Publisher: Crown Pub Pub. Date: 25 June, 2002 List Price(USD): $25.95 |
 |
Title: Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism by Sean Hannity ISBN: 0060514558 Publisher: Regan Books Pub. Date: 20 August, 2002 List Price(USD): $25.95 |
 |
Title: Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson by Kenneth R. Timmerman ISBN: 0895261650 Publisher: Regnery Publishing Pub. Date: 04 March, 2002 List Price(USD): $29.95 |
 |
Title: The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House by Barbara Olson ISBN: 0895261677 Publisher: Regnery Publishing Pub. Date: December, 2001 List Price(USD): $27.95 |
 |
Title: The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds by Tammy Bruce ISBN: 0761534040 Publisher: Prima Publishing Pub. Date: 23 October, 2001 List Price(USD): $23.95 |
Thank you for visiting www.AnyBook4Less.com and enjoy your savings!
Copyright� 2001-2021 Send your comments
