specious_reasons
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,124
OK, so I have (finally) read Bias by Bernard Goldberg, and I have a few things to say. Pardon me if this is long, I'll break it up into subsections so people can pick and choose their subjects on which to harangue me.
Agenda
This book, of course, has an agenda. It might do to explain what I see as the history behind this book:
Eric Engberg produces a news story that's essentially an attack on Forbes. (Engberg also works for CBS news.)
Goldberg gets upset at the bias shown in the story, and writes an unapproved opinion article using Engberg's story as an example and decries the media's "liberal bias."
In response, Rather and the other TV network bigshots do what they do best, assign a spin to the story and dismiss it on the basis of their spin. Goldberg, regardless of his actual politics, becomes a right-wing idealogue, in the view of the networks.
It seems clear after reading this book that the purpose of this book was to show and justify his persecution at the hands of the "liberal media."
From the first chapter, the book intends to show the media:
- is slanted leftward.
- reflexively denies bias, while assigning bias to critics
- thinks "liberal" social viewpoints are merely "reasonable"
- identifies liberal as mainstream and conservative as "right-wing"
- is not trusted by America anymore.
Unfortunately, Goldberg doesn't prove this. Yes, he does provide examples of all the bullet points, and he expresses his opinion on the subject. But the proof is lacking. One important omission are the citations, references and bibliography, he's speaking from his own experience here. (Note: what facts he does use are given proper references.)
And some people will point to that experience (30 years, seven Emmys) that his opinion on the subject is more relevant than even many of the "professional liberal bashers" (page 180, what he calls the MRC). However, I remain skeptical, because of confirmation bias and his agenda.
To be more specific, Bernard Goldberg worked at CBS news for 28 of his 30 years experience. The news organization that he had the most exposure to is, by his description, centered around a single dominating personality with an unswerving liberal bias. His personal experience may shed a bad light on CBS News, but the argument that his opinion applies to all TV news, and further to the larger media, is weak.
This is also the same organization that he is trying to claim treated him unfairly, just because he dared to expose their "liberal bias". The book is filled with the tribulations he endured after his op-ed piece. Therefore, if he can show the awful bias he dared to expose, his cause is publicly justified.
Vindictive?
Goldberg also writes that, "Anyone who writes a book to be vindictive is almost certainly insane," (page 5) and its seems clear after reading this book that the purpose of this book was not to vilify CBS News. Of course, that doesn't mean he doesn't take lots of shots at his former boss, Dan Rather:
- called him "ruthless and unforgiving"
- likens him to a Mafia don, and calls him "The Dan" throughout the book
- says media elites think, "everything to the right of Lenin is a
'right-winger'"
- makes accusation that Rather made off the record remarks about
Connie Chung because she was getting more airtime during the
Oklahoma City bombing coverage.
Or of other executives at CBS, like Jon Klien. He "comes off as a cross between a well-dressed Woody Allen...and Machiavelli." He's "[...] the kind of guy who thought people who tell the truth do it mainly because they lack imagination." (page 114)
Identity Politics
I'd comment more about this chapter, but it's already been shown that liberals are identified approximately as often conservatives. Goldberg is using his own recollection of the facts, rather than researching them. It's confirmation bias of his recollection.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h011202_1.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h011402_1.shtml
Before reading the book, I had accused Goldberg of "data mining." That seems wrong. The facts he uses are from other sources, but anything else is based on his casual observations.
The Homeless and AIDS
I'm afraid I can't disagree with Goldberg here. These are exactly the types of issues which will expose the liberal bias of the reporters. In fact, I would venture to say that only a liberal reporter would even want to report on these issues. There are, however, a few problems:
---
Why didn't he pick subject matter that any reporter might be expected to cover and examine the bias in those?
---
Why was there such an attempt to make the homeless and AIDS problems look like the face of middle America? He answers it himself: Fear sells, and the target demographic is white middle America. People don't get scared if the problem is relegated to "fringe groups."
---
Why was the homeless a big story during the Reagan years?
Racism
Goldberg reveals that his liberal colleagues, while trying to maintain a level of political correctness, still display hypocritical racist tendencies. He then engages in some speculative psychoanalysis as to why: "[...] to ease their own pain, to make themselves feel less guilty, and, most important, to prove how good and caring they are." (page 108 - emphasis in original)
You can choose to believe his analysis or not, what I wonder is what this has to do with "liberal bias."
Conservative Bias?
Goldberg does provide examples of liberal bias, but he also conveniently points out some examples of conservative bias, too.
For instance, he points out an instance that Tom Brokaw fails to criticize his corporate masters (page 34). He could have taken that example straight from FAIR.
Here's another interesting little bit:
"Well, new fans, here's one of those dirty little secrets journalists are never supposed to reveal to the regular folks out there in the audience: a reporter can find an expert to say anything the reporter wants - anything!" (page 20)
It's not a surprise to me, in fact, I've known this for many years. It's the central theme in Trust Us, We're Experts, written by the editors of PR Watch. It's shown as one of most valuable tools the PR industry has to shape the news. I think Goldberg states it best, " Engberg's piece [...] was like a TV campaign commercial paid for by Opponents of the Steve Forbes Flat Tax." (page 20) What didn't seem to occur to him was that was a distinct possibility.
Unresearched speculation
I don't pay for Lexis-Nexis or any other news service, so I can't necessarily refute these, but they come in the form of rhetorical questions or speculations that should have been stated as facts, if they could be proved true. There may be more, but I ran out of time to dig them out.
"There is absolutely no way - not one chance in a million - that Engberg or Rather would have aired a flat-tax story with that same contemptuous tone if Teddy Kennedy or Hillary Clinton had come up with the idea." (page 16)
- Maybe, but the story was a hatchet piece on Forbes, not on his flat-tax. If Goldberg wanted to, he could have found a media hatchet job on one of Teddy's weaknesses.
"Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton's health care plan 'wacky'? Can you imagine Dan Rather or any other major American news anchorman allowing it?" (page 17)
- Can I imagine it? Maybe. I don't remember the word "wacky", that's not to say I remember the universal health care being treated kindly, either.
Conclusion
I'd like to write more (there are more subjects covered in the book), but just what I had chewed up a lot of my time, and I borrowed the book from the library. Maybe, if people think I've missed important points, I'll go back and address them.
Now, I've heard people use the same sentiment he expressed early in this book, "Just turn on your TV set and it's there." (page 2) I'll agree. What I don't agree with is what kind of bias we're seeing. Yes, I see liberal bias, especially on the "social" issues. But I also see pro-corporate, pro-establishment, conservative bias in the news, too. I think it's in the eye of the beholder, and Goldberg is looking for what he wants to see.
There are many opinions that Goldberg and I share. If he had named this book "Bad News," and stated many of the same observations, I would agree with him whole-heartedly. TV network news is based on ratings and profit. Consequently, the news content suffers. Sometimes it makes good entertainment and bad news. Like he says "[Engberg] could be snippy and snooty. But he could not be boring." (page 17) Bias is sometimes evident, but is not acknowledged. Acknowledging any bias is bad for the ratings.
I see this book as an interesting anecdote, but not the proof some people claim. Not when the author is using his own recollections to show how unfairly he was treated for exposing "liberal bias."
Agenda
This book, of course, has an agenda. It might do to explain what I see as the history behind this book:
Eric Engberg produces a news story that's essentially an attack on Forbes. (Engberg also works for CBS news.)
Goldberg gets upset at the bias shown in the story, and writes an unapproved opinion article using Engberg's story as an example and decries the media's "liberal bias."
In response, Rather and the other TV network bigshots do what they do best, assign a spin to the story and dismiss it on the basis of their spin. Goldberg, regardless of his actual politics, becomes a right-wing idealogue, in the view of the networks.
It seems clear after reading this book that the purpose of this book was to show and justify his persecution at the hands of the "liberal media."
From the first chapter, the book intends to show the media:
- is slanted leftward.
- reflexively denies bias, while assigning bias to critics
- thinks "liberal" social viewpoints are merely "reasonable"
- identifies liberal as mainstream and conservative as "right-wing"
- is not trusted by America anymore.
Unfortunately, Goldberg doesn't prove this. Yes, he does provide examples of all the bullet points, and he expresses his opinion on the subject. But the proof is lacking. One important omission are the citations, references and bibliography, he's speaking from his own experience here. (Note: what facts he does use are given proper references.)
And some people will point to that experience (30 years, seven Emmys) that his opinion on the subject is more relevant than even many of the "professional liberal bashers" (page 180, what he calls the MRC). However, I remain skeptical, because of confirmation bias and his agenda.
To be more specific, Bernard Goldberg worked at CBS news for 28 of his 30 years experience. The news organization that he had the most exposure to is, by his description, centered around a single dominating personality with an unswerving liberal bias. His personal experience may shed a bad light on CBS News, but the argument that his opinion applies to all TV news, and further to the larger media, is weak.
This is also the same organization that he is trying to claim treated him unfairly, just because he dared to expose their "liberal bias". The book is filled with the tribulations he endured after his op-ed piece. Therefore, if he can show the awful bias he dared to expose, his cause is publicly justified.
Vindictive?
Goldberg also writes that, "Anyone who writes a book to be vindictive is almost certainly insane," (page 5) and its seems clear after reading this book that the purpose of this book was not to vilify CBS News. Of course, that doesn't mean he doesn't take lots of shots at his former boss, Dan Rather:
- called him "ruthless and unforgiving"
- likens him to a Mafia don, and calls him "The Dan" throughout the book
- says media elites think, "everything to the right of Lenin is a
'right-winger'"
- makes accusation that Rather made off the record remarks about
Connie Chung because she was getting more airtime during the
Oklahoma City bombing coverage.
Or of other executives at CBS, like Jon Klien. He "comes off as a cross between a well-dressed Woody Allen...and Machiavelli." He's "[...] the kind of guy who thought people who tell the truth do it mainly because they lack imagination." (page 114)
Identity Politics
I'd comment more about this chapter, but it's already been shown that liberals are identified approximately as often conservatives. Goldberg is using his own recollection of the facts, rather than researching them. It's confirmation bias of his recollection.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h011202_1.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h011402_1.shtml
Before reading the book, I had accused Goldberg of "data mining." That seems wrong. The facts he uses are from other sources, but anything else is based on his casual observations.
The Homeless and AIDS
I'm afraid I can't disagree with Goldberg here. These are exactly the types of issues which will expose the liberal bias of the reporters. In fact, I would venture to say that only a liberal reporter would even want to report on these issues. There are, however, a few problems:
---
Why didn't he pick subject matter that any reporter might be expected to cover and examine the bias in those?
---
Why was there such an attempt to make the homeless and AIDS problems look like the face of middle America? He answers it himself: Fear sells, and the target demographic is white middle America. People don't get scared if the problem is relegated to "fringe groups."
---
Why was the homeless a big story during the Reagan years?
I'm thinking because it sells.
Racism
Goldberg reveals that his liberal colleagues, while trying to maintain a level of political correctness, still display hypocritical racist tendencies. He then engages in some speculative psychoanalysis as to why: "[...] to ease their own pain, to make themselves feel less guilty, and, most important, to prove how good and caring they are." (page 108 - emphasis in original)
You can choose to believe his analysis or not, what I wonder is what this has to do with "liberal bias."
Conservative Bias?
Goldberg does provide examples of liberal bias, but he also conveniently points out some examples of conservative bias, too.
For instance, he points out an instance that Tom Brokaw fails to criticize his corporate masters (page 34). He could have taken that example straight from FAIR.
Here's another interesting little bit:
"Well, new fans, here's one of those dirty little secrets journalists are never supposed to reveal to the regular folks out there in the audience: a reporter can find an expert to say anything the reporter wants - anything!" (page 20)
It's not a surprise to me, in fact, I've known this for many years. It's the central theme in Trust Us, We're Experts, written by the editors of PR Watch. It's shown as one of most valuable tools the PR industry has to shape the news. I think Goldberg states it best, " Engberg's piece [...] was like a TV campaign commercial paid for by Opponents of the Steve Forbes Flat Tax." (page 20) What didn't seem to occur to him was that was a distinct possibility.
Unresearched speculation
I don't pay for Lexis-Nexis or any other news service, so I can't necessarily refute these, but they come in the form of rhetorical questions or speculations that should have been stated as facts, if they could be proved true. There may be more, but I ran out of time to dig them out.
"There is absolutely no way - not one chance in a million - that Engberg or Rather would have aired a flat-tax story with that same contemptuous tone if Teddy Kennedy or Hillary Clinton had come up with the idea." (page 16)
- Maybe, but the story was a hatchet piece on Forbes, not on his flat-tax. If Goldberg wanted to, he could have found a media hatchet job on one of Teddy's weaknesses.
"Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton's health care plan 'wacky'? Can you imagine Dan Rather or any other major American news anchorman allowing it?" (page 17)
- Can I imagine it? Maybe. I don't remember the word "wacky", that's not to say I remember the universal health care being treated kindly, either.
Conclusion
I'd like to write more (there are more subjects covered in the book), but just what I had chewed up a lot of my time, and I borrowed the book from the library. Maybe, if people think I've missed important points, I'll go back and address them.
Now, I've heard people use the same sentiment he expressed early in this book, "Just turn on your TV set and it's there." (page 2) I'll agree. What I don't agree with is what kind of bias we're seeing. Yes, I see liberal bias, especially on the "social" issues. But I also see pro-corporate, pro-establishment, conservative bias in the news, too. I think it's in the eye of the beholder, and Goldberg is looking for what he wants to see.
There are many opinions that Goldberg and I share. If he had named this book "Bad News," and stated many of the same observations, I would agree with him whole-heartedly. TV network news is based on ratings and profit. Consequently, the news content suffers. Sometimes it makes good entertainment and bad news. Like he says "[Engberg] could be snippy and snooty. But he could not be boring." (page 17) Bias is sometimes evident, but is not acknowledged. Acknowledging any bias is bad for the ratings.
I see this book as an interesting anecdote, but not the proof some people claim. Not when the author is using his own recollections to show how unfairly he was treated for exposing "liberal bias."
