Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell - the Harley riding iconoclastic Native American from Colorado - chuckled about the way the media coverage of him changed. Early in his career he was brash, bold, unconventional and exciting. Later he was called difficult, out-of-touch and lacking sympathy for ordinary people. The change? Campbell switched parties, going from Democrat to Republican. Though his voting record didn't vary, the media account of him did. This singular event, thoughtfully examined tells you everything you need to know about today's modern media. Thankfully, we have LOTS more examples due to the fine work of Brent Bozell and his Media Research Center. They are the authority on analyzing and categorizing the leftist tilt of the national news media. In the last 15 years both the Congress and Presidency have been held by each major party, yet the way the media attributes credit or blame to each somehow varies. When there was a budget impasse in 1990 it was Bush's fault, when again in 1995 it was Newt Gingrich and the GOP Congress' fault.

Of course much more than Congress is covered here. Nearly every social and cultural issue that can be politicized is examined. One of the most damning studies involves media labeling. Did you know you can be a Republican with a view on abortion shared by 51% of Americans and be labeled "extreme right"? Not coincidentally, your liberal counterpart can hold truly extreme positions advocating government funded abortion on demand and be labeled a "moderate." In fact if you had a nickel for every time the national media used a term like "extreme left" you might, with a little luck, one day own a nickel.

Economic studies are also devastating. The U.S. economy has not been recession for 2 years, and for nearly a year our economy has been growing at the hottest pace in 20 years. Despite this, the people whom the media inform still think the economy is IN recession. If you were a journalist, should you not be ashamed that people are so uninformed about such a vital fact? Not our national media, who don't mind misleading Americans about the state of our nation so long as it hurts Bush.

Bozell names names and tells it like it is in reporter's own words and exhaustive media studies. The 2004 race will be nasty, and the media has their job cut out for them in getting a democrat into the White House. Kerry doesn't have Clinton's charm and blarney so the press will be in turbo-mode to attack Bush and push Kerry. The media inform the public and characterize the state of the world -- such as with the state of our economy -- and are thus far more important to the state of society than ANY elected official. Read this book. Understand how those who control and disseminate information affect the nation and our future. This year it is as important as ever.

I just finished this book and logged on to write a review about it. I previously wrote a review of Barry Bonds: Baseball's Superman, written by my friend Steven Travers, so I checked it out. I was amazed to see all kinds of negative reviews of this book, which sold well and even won an award, I think. Then I read these reviews further and discovered that none of it had anything to do with Steve's book. It turns out Steve writes reviews of books and movies on Amazon himself. Like me, he is pretty conservative. He wrote some reviews about Michael Moore, books and documentaries by him, a few about him, etc.

Anyway, the stuff Travs wrote about Moore was not real flattering of Moore, but it looked to be researched and was basically within the framework of the stuff a lot of people write and say about Moore, who is pretty controversial either way you cut the mustard. It turns out somebody turned the Moore supporters on to Steve, how I'm not sure, but they all decided to give a bunch of negative, fake reviews of Barry Bonds: Baseball's Superman. Lord, I could not believe some of the stuff people were saying about my friend. Terrible reviews. One stars. Calling him a liar, claiming all kinds of untruths about him, and the Bonds book had nothing to do with politics. One clown apparently wrote more than one of the reviews, and when I looked at other reviews I saw this dingleberry shadowing Steve's reviews, sort of the way a kid repeats what another kid says on a schoolyard. The guy looks like he has several aliases or something and gives Steve "unhelpful" votes even when Steve gives the best review in the lot.

Is this the way the left operates? This book by Bozell details these kinds of tactics, and wouldn't you know that here it is, up front and personal. These people just hide and do hit-and'runs. Steve puts his name and email address up there like a man. If you like him or not, and he's opinionated so you might not like him, you know who he is and what he stands for. These people are cowards. This is what Bozell talks about. These people used to have all the power in this country, but not anymore. The way they deal with their lack of popularity is so telling. Just shut up or, if you have anything to say, be up front about it.

The mainstream media wants us to believe they are just reporting the news, but it is filled with bias. Conservatives stand right up and identify themselves and say, "Here I am, this is who I am, agree or disagree." Judging from recent elections and ratings, most people agree.

These liberals are so...untruthful.

This book covers the well documented shift in the media over the last decade. At some point, and it's hard to tell exactly when, the media evolved to be politically biased. The objectivity the previous generation grew up with was replaced by increasingly obvious attempts to make and impact the news through political labels, and clearly biased language and news coverage.

Much of this book covers issues well documented elsewhere, most notably in Goldberg's expose "Bias", wherein Goldberg describes how the CBS team became little more than paid Liberal spokesmen. So, as a few other reviewers have mentioned, the overall effect of this book is that is feels a bit dated. However, if you have not previously read or studied this issue, then this book is a great place to start.

The topics are organized into three sections. The first, The Real Source of Bias, covers the fact that the vast majority of those in media positions simply see the world through their own lens and project that outward, often without realizing it. Section two depicts how many of the significant moral and ethical issues of our time are increasingly presented with a slant far to the Left. So when election results and polls that show the American public is no where near at the level of alignment with how the media elite would have us believe, the media seem genuinely surprised. The key issues include abortion, the environment, religion, gay rights, gun control, and others. The final section looks at some of the most egregious depictions of bias, including the hilariously biased coverage by the networks in the 2000 Presidential election.

The book is so well documented it would be impossible to start quoting some of the hundreds of quotes and evidence of this media shift, and represent the book. I will say that those who may find themselves on the far left politically or socially may not want to read this, as the book itself is, ironically, biased against that end of the political spectrum.

Overall, easy to read, fascinating and well documented information, but perhaps a bit dated. Recommended for those who have an interested in better understanding why and how the media became so obsessed with being the news, instead of reporting it.

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.

L. Brent Bozell's "Weapons of Mass Distortion: The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media" arrived on the scene long before the recent revelations linking CBS news to documents, since revealed as counterfeit, impugning President Bush's National Guard record. Too bad. The author could have written his book on this issue alone. Bozell, the founder and president of the Media Research Center, spends his days investigating incidents of media bias. Not surprisingly, the bias he uncovers is decidedly liberal in scope. This conclusion is no surprise to me or to millions of other Americans who have known for years that news outlets like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Time Magazine, and dozens of other purportedly "balanced" sources of news absolutely reek of left wing favoritism. What else could you expect? The employees at these places consist primarily of graying baby boomers; those spoiled, insolent brats whose existence has been a pox on our country for four decades. Not every baby boomer is a problem let alone a frothing at the mouth radical, of course, but the ones who are unfortunately decided to pursue careers in the public spotlight and never tire of giving the rest of us headaches. Bozell's book excoriates these capering clowns, nearly all of which we know all too well.

Actually, I shouldn't call these fire breathers clowns since what Bozell explains to us in the book is deadly serious business, touching every aspect of our lives as well as influencing the nation's future. "Weapons of Mass Distortion" begins with a survey of recent literature dealing with media bias. The usual suspects appear--Al Franken, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Eric Alterman, and Joe Conason--all of whom scoff at the idea that the mainstream media support left wing agendas. In fact, some of these guys argue that the media have a right wing bias, citing such incidents as the 2000 election to bolster their claims. Nonsense, argues Bozell, who then sets out to prove how time and again the media mandarins set the agenda. How do they do it? You already know. It's how Katie Couric sighs when interviewing a conservative figure, or the eye rolling and tone of exasperation when a reporter or interviewer must deal with one of those clueless right wing evildoers. It's the unabashed gushing, giggling, and general sycophancy whenever Hillary and Bill Clinton roll into the studio for another round of self-promotion. It's labeling news stories with the tag "conservative" as a signal for sinister activities while left leaning organizations and figures get a pass. It's often just not covering stories at all if the left will suffer as a result.

Bozell sees these things happening repeatedly in coverage of the Clinton presidency, gun control, the economy, abortion rights, religion, and the environment. Stories of major import receive coverage based solely on their relevancy to pre-conceived left wing agendas. The media always support pro-environmental activism even though the science behind the blathering is often crackpot. If you're a Christian, forget about getting a fair shake from the mainstream media; they despise the Catholic Church and conservative protestant denominations for having the temerity to actually oppose certain behaviors. The gall! Where the book really shines, though, are the chapters covering the horrors of the Clinton regime and the travesty that was Election 2000. Bozell proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Slick Willy and Red Hilly received favorable treatment from the media during those scandal plagued years. Sure, the media threw a few punches over the whole Lewinsky incident, but other more sinister scandals dropped out of the headlines never to return (if they got their in the first place). Even worse than the eight-year lovefest accorded the Clintons was the disaster of the last presidential election. Bozell indicts the media with nothing less than creating a constitutional crisis because their man Gore didn't win the election.

"Weapons of Mass Distortion" concludes with a thoughtful analysis of the coming implosion of the liberal media. According to Bozell, the proliferation of alternative media on both television and the Internet presents a serious threat to business as usual at CBS, NBC, ABC, and all the rest. Viewers are defecting in droves to search out less ideologically driven news sources, forcing the big outlets to adapt to the change by adding conservative voices to their staffs. Most continue to resist the looming disaster, steadfastly standing by the old "we're not biased" mantras that served them so well for decades. Bozell says they do so at their own risk. The world is a constantly changing, dangerous place that can no longer support the slanted viewpoints of a coterie of wealthy liberal media celebrities (who are predominantly white, by the way, a fact that seems lost on these people even as they brand other institutions as racist and exclusive).

If I had a problem with the book, it is the omission of Hollywood as a prime force of liberal media. I realize Bozell wanted to focus on news organizations, but we cannot forget that Tinseltown disseminates most of the left wing propaganda we see and hear. As bad as Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, and the rest of the motley crew is, they don't hold a candle to the poison oozing out of California. It's gotten so bad that I have to shut my mind off whenever the extreme left wing themes pop up in a movie or show. If I didn't, I couldn't watch most of the stuff produced in the last twenty years! Bozell's book is a good read, although I don't see it changing anyone's mind. Liberals will continue to deny bias while conservatives gnash their teeth in frustration. By all means give it a shot.

No matter what our political persuasions happen to be, the news media and its biases are important to us, because that's where most of us get our information. If most of the people reporting the news lean one way politically, that is important news in itself and Mr. Bozell makes it clear that most media people and organizations lean to the left. Who owns a media outlet is irrelevant. What is important is how the media outlet slants the news. Most of them slant it left. Mr. Bozell proves it. Read this book and find out for yourself.

I purchased this book at a Brent Bozell book-signing event in our area. I got mine signed and then started reading it immediately. It reads fast and is a pleasure from end-to-end. The personal stories make the book fun to read, and the well researched facts proves beyond a doubt that liberal bias exists in the media. Bozell has been in the media and was a pioneer in researching bias in the media. He is a well respected and most informed person to date to author a book on this subject.

Liberal news media bias has been discussed since the early days of the Nixon administration. One book from that era - possibly written by Raymond Price - emphasized that near-unanimous liberal bias was a "conformity, not a conspiracy".

Well, things are much worse today. Liberal media moguls really do conspire now, even if there are some cracks in the wall.

Brent Bozell sure does have timing - a ticka ticka ticka ticka.

His book on liberal media bias appears to have been finished before the onset of the current political campaigns and was probably timed for release toward the end of an election year. But only in Bozell's dreams could it have come out at roughly the same time that Dan Rather and the honchos at CBS got caught with their pants down trying to use forged documents to do the nasty to George W. Bush.

As if that weren't enough, this book also coincides with Matt Drudge's unearthing of the memo written by ABC Political Director Mark Halperin to his staff, which virtually amounted to a "how-to" campaign manual for the Kerry candidacy.

Liberals and leftists are forever using the fiction of opposition and identity with the underdog for self-promotion. So they don't respond very well when they are in control and are loathe to acknowledge actually being in control, preferring to manufacture opposition and oppression.

Most liberals deny that there is, in fact, a liberal news media bias, but this is nothing more than pseudo-sophisticated flat-earthism. Even without the two aforementioned recent examples, one would have to be living in a cave not to see how the mainstream media has been co-opted as another arm of the Kerry campaign. This reviewer, by the way, is not voting for either Bush or Kerry.

Bozell starts out very strongly - hitting on the head all of the arguments that are conventionally used to bely the existence of liberal news media bias: 1) what about conservative commentators/talk-radio? 2) the news media is owned by corporate conglomerates 3) not ALL conservatives believe in the boogeyman and 4) look how mean everyone was to poor old Al Gore.

But as the book advances, Bozell often makes the same mistake that liberals make when raising the talk-radio red herring. His response to argument (1) is appropriate: there is a difference between openly-ideological commentators who overtly seek to persuade (some are conservative and some are liberal) and reporters who try to disguise biased commentary as objective analysis (almost monolithically liberal).

Yet much of Bozell's criticism is directed towards morning-show personalities such as Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric, who seem to be his favorite targets. They're both leftist, mean-spirited, and mentally-challenged fluff-deliverers, but no one regards them as anything other than commentators.

Still, Bozell never wanders that far from the target - reinforcing the standard analyses of media slant delivered by Rothman and Lichter, by Bernard Goldberg in his own book on the subject, and by Bozell's Media Research Center. He also provides a wealth of anecdotal evidence of liberal double standards that will make your blood boil.

Having said all that, I think that it's over-simplistic to analyze news media using a pure left-right dichotomy. Media is at least as woman-centered as it is liberal-centered. The two concepts are often synonymous: what passes for liberal ideology today is largely emotion-centered (i.e., female) pap. That explains the sentiment for gun control, where logic and objective analysis tend to show that it doesn't work.

But the news media isn't always as anti-gun as Bozell thinks. Yeah, they USUALLY cover gun stories from a Million-Soccer-Mom-March earth-mother perspective, ranting against bad men with guns. But when the discussion turns to FEMALE ownership of guns, guns don't seem so bad. These stories are inevitably written from a female-empowerment perspective.

Women shooting men doesn't sound particularly "liberal", but clearly women are virtuous whether they seek to eliminate guns or shoot men, who, of course, are never virtuous. This is just one example of a women-good/men-bad mindset that dominates media and popular culture and actually trumps conventional leftism.

Bozell expresses optimism that the wall of liberal news media bias is being torn down. He bases this cheerfulness on public skepticism about news sources, the emergence of Fox News as an alternative source, and the strength of conservative philosophy.

Amazingly enough, as recently as this book was completed, Bozell does NOT anticipate the blogocracy that brought Dan Rather to his knees. Conservative publications are now bubbling with the proliferation of web-page addresses of pajama-clad warriors looking for fresh game. Hugh Hewitt is their Schwarzkopf, and THESE are probably the best weapons against the liberal overlords that rule mainstream media.

Beyond that, I think that Bozell is somewhat naïve. The human mind is very easily fooled and people do not have to BELIEVE what they are receiving from mainstream media in order to find themselves acting on it.

Fox News might be more balanced, but Rupert Murdoch is too sordid and Fox's entertainment programming is filled with as much filth as that of its competitors. Fox's emergence as a fourth network hasn't exactly spawned a rebirth of wholesome entertainment. Clearly, Fox is not a reliable conservative warhorse.

And as for conservative philosophy, it is indeed more well-grounded in nature and logic than is liberalism. That's not proof that it's going to prevail against a still-entrenched liberal mainstream media and pop culture. As a conservative, Bozell shouldn't be such a happy warrior in the face of such opposition. Conservative philosophy requires one to walk a straight and narrow path but is cognizant of flaws in human nature that make it unlikely that many people will do so.

When Whittaker Chambers moved from left to right, he declared that he was joining the losing side. Bozell forgets that to be a conservative is to have a wry pessimistic sense of humor grounded in a fatalistic view that the life of a conservative in the libertine West is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

It is easy to argue bias in either direction, and thoughtfully excluding examples of the counterpoint does not help the author's position.

However, the author does raise some specifics which largely go ignored or unanswered in most of today's press.

A sad era has come upon us, in that today's corporately-controlled pseudo-news infotainment outlets pass themselves off as "voices crying in the wilderness" or some other such nonesense - and a signifcant portion of the US population take the media at their word without doing one moment's worth of research on their own. The condition of today's press is our fault alone.

The phrase below is not original - but I do not recall it's origin, it shocked me long ago when I once believed that news anchors and reporters actually reported instead of developed the news:

"The Media: Forging reality from preconceived editorial notion"

Far too appropriate today.

This book may actually deserve four stars. But I spent many years in journalism myself, so to me most of Bozell's revelations are old news.

Among general readers his insights may prompt an epiphany. Even conservatives will be surprised, not at his examples of slanted coverage (they deal with that every day), but at his exposure of the roots of bias: the sanctimony and visceral anger that animate many individual 'mainstream' journalists. Bozell documents credibly that if there's a stronghold of white male rage in America, it's our newsrooms - not our trailer parks or gun clubs.

He fails, however, to explore the single most important strategem by which reporters and editors distort the news: the selective omission of key background information. Hence, articles on gun control regularly allude to the wholesale British gun ban. But most carefully avoid mention of the explosion of violent crime in the UK that followed the ban, much of it still committed with - you guessed it - guns.

Another example: Reporting on the federal budget regularly highlights Democrat complaints that 'tax cuts caused the deficit.' But 'mainstream' reporters rarely mention that such complaints are utterly baseless; that sweeping tax cuts have, on the contrary, caused sharp revenue growth every time they've been implemented - under Kennedy, Reagan and now Bush II. Nor do they explore the competing theories among serious economists over why (NOT whether) this happens.

Despite my grumbling, buy this book! Unless you're some kind of bleeding-heart PC girly-man lightweight, you would spend more at happy hour ... or on a carton of smokes ... or a morning at the range (depending, of course, on what caliber ammo you shoot).