Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
Arrogance: Rescuing America From the Media Elite Hardcover – November 3, 2003
|New from||Used from|
Featured world language titles
Sponsored by McGraw-Hill Learn more.
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
From Publishers Weekly
Most people who hit the top of the bestseller lists with their first book would enjoy their success, but Goldberg (Bias) would rather grouse about how little media attention he got and how even his new publisher (he was previously with Regnery) doesn't understand why liberal bias in journalism is a "crucial" issue. His analysis of the media's "leftward" slant in coverage of social issues, buttressed by his own experiences as a CBS News correspondent and tales from anonymous colleagues, is not without its persuasive qualities, though undermined by rather obvious deck-stacking, condescension toward opposing viewpoints and intermittent outrageousness. He also drops hints about how news organizations bully interviewees to eliminate anything that might contradict what they broadcast an act of arrogance transcending ideological lines but quickly drops that story in favor of more liberal-bashing. And despite his admonition to media professionals to "stop taking [criticism] personally," Goldberg repeatedly makes it personal, taking shots at Barbara Walters, for example, or accusing New York Times columnist Frank Rich of attacking him as a favor to a college classmate. That's only a fraction of his complaints against what he sees as the paper of record's ideological stance, which he considers both far more pervasive and more important than the Jayson Blair scandal. (Nor, he says, is it a new problem, recycling criticisms of Stalin-era Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty that have recently gained favor among mainstream analysts.) Goldberg isn't just a lone voice in the wilderness, either, as interviews with Bob Costas and Tim Russert offer supporting perspectives. Still, this is pure, unadulterated Goldberg, with precisely the same combination of insider knowledge and righteous indignation that made him a hit the first time around
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
"After smacking the media around in his first book for being insufferably liberal, Bernard Goldberg is back with another hardback scolding." --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Browse award-winning titles. See more
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Top Customer Reviews
However, Goldberg got it wrong when discussing race as the liberal legacy and the right's 'monumental moral failure.' Goldberg should research how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Look at the voting record. Roughly 80% of the Republicans voted for the bill while the rate of "Yea" votes by the Democrats in Congress was 60%. In other words, without the higher voting percentage of the Republicans, the bill would not have passed. I hardly consider this moral failure of the right.
Having been written in 2003, Goldberg did a supreme job of noting the bias of the sex abuse scandal of the Catholic Church. Even today, I would bet that people will bring up the term "pedophile priest." During the height of this scandal, Goldberg clearly noted the sex abuse scandal was not really about pedophilia. Rather, the problem was about gay priests molesting teenage boys. The point being made wasn't aimed to be anti-gay. "But since almost all of the priests involved in the scandal were in fact gay, and since all of their prey were adolescent boys", then the news stories should have asked the question "Why is that, and could that be causing the molestation of these kids?" After all the news on this matter, one would answer that question with "pedophile priests" but the answer turned out to be "gays in the priesthood."
Having read Goldberg's first book, "Bias", I was anxious to pick up this, his sequel, and see if he could enlighten me on more reasons to believe that the media is decidedly biased and give me more examples to prove his point. And with "Arrogance", I feel like Goldberg has once again driven the point home about the way a large majority of the people working in the media feel about political and social issues and how their own bias comes through in the way they report the news.
Goldberg attacks certain people and entities more than others in this book. He seems to have a major bone to pick with Dan Rather and he talks about his negative encounters with the head of the CBS evening news as well as his talk with Andy Rooney about an incident where Rooney got himself in trouble by suggesting that Rather was liberal during an interview on the Larry King Live show. Rooney got in trouble with the network for being "disloyal to a colleague". The exchange of words between Goldberg and Rooney is friendly, but to the point, with Rooney avoiding the issue about discussing media bias, apparently out of fear of it affecting his own career and future with the network.
Another thing that seems to bother Goldberg quite a bit is the New York Times and the media's general reliability on the Times as the definitive news source. Much of what he says here is true: the Times is often used as the infallible Bible of journalism. If it's printed in the New York Times, the general feeling by others in the media is that it must have some merit. There would have to be truth about the story at hand or, it is assumed, the Times would not print it. This thinking gives a newspaper like the Times tremendous political clout. What the Times says is often quoted so much that the public is bound to begin to believe much of it, even if it is known to be questionable. This wouldn't be a problem if the paper was neutral but, like Goldberg points out, its stories almost always take a leftward- leaning angle.
Goldberg offers up many good examples of bias in the media and the overall "liberal" slant that most media outlets seem to take. Granted, these are only a handful of examples are there are probably plenty of examples to the contrary. But there are some areas where Mr. Goldberg is accurate in his assertions. Take the gun issue, for example. The media, in general, wants everyone to believe that guns are bad in every single way. Their motives for feeling this way are well- intentioned: they want to minimize gun violence as much as possible and it is feared that if anything positive is said, it could lead to an increase in gun usage to commit crimes. Thus, there is little or no coverage ever given when guns are used to save lives. On the other hand, if guns are used to commit acts of violence, the media want to make sure everyone knows, and often they will drive the point home by talking about the guns and saying the word several times in one short report. But when guns are successfully used in self- defense, there is little or nothing stated about it. In fact, the media is careful to structure its words carefully so that the reported story, while twisted, is still close enough to accurate that no one can accuse them of outright lying.
Not everyone in the media is guilty of showing bias, and Goldberg gives credit where credit is due. Two people he singles out for their professionalism and their basically unbiased reporting are Tim Russert and Bob Costas. To back himself, Goldberg has question and answer interviews with the two men so that you, the reader, can hear exactly what was stated without editing or the chance anything was taken out of context. Both Russert and Costas agree that bias is present in the media and they both give some good examples of what they do when confronted by this problem.
Much of what Goldberg presents in this book is interesting to read about and I really enjoy his quotations taken directly from those in the media and from some of the big name actors/actresses in Hollywood. Many of these I have heard before but some of them are brand new. And they are very revealing in the way they take sides in favor of liberal causes or against conservative causes. Of course, some of them are taken from move actors and actresses and not from media people, so I can only assume that Goldberg added them for entertainment purposes.
As far as the charges levied against the media, the root cause of this is probably the place where journalism is taught: The nation's high schools and institutions of higher learning. If anything should be singled out, criticized, and targeted for change, this would seem like the place to start. And the book does, indeed, take a few stabs at the one- sidedness of journalism schools and toward the end of the book, it presents a so- called "12 Step Program", which has, among its dozen outlined agendas for change, a plea to change the way journalism is taught to students. Meant to parallel the same program that alcoholics use to recover from their drinking habit, this "12 Step Program" is the author's way to correct the problem with bias in the media. First and foremost, media people have to admit they have a problem in the first place- something many of them refuse to do. Then, the media needs to disassociate itself with New York City because there are too many liberals already living there. The remaining steps build upon being open and accepting of diverse viewpoints and one of the steps, #11, includes a list of conservative organizations complete with phone numbers, web sites, and other contact information so that people can get more diversified in the way they think.
If I had to point out some criticisms in this book, it would have to first be its own obvious bias (quite ironic, wouldn't you say?) and its failure to present both sides of the issue. Of course, Goldberg would quickly point out that there really isn't much to point out on the "other" side because the news media is already so one- sided that it's difficult to find those with differing opinions. The other thing I didn't like too much is that the book doesn't take a stronger stance on getting to the root of the problem and making changes there. If journalism schools are the main culprit, then someone needs to work toward either changing the curriculum at these schools; getting more conservative minded students to select journalism as a major; or opening up schools specifically for the purpose of teaching journalism in a more acceptable way. All of this whining about the bias in the media isn't going to change anything. Goldberg and others need to devise a workable plan of action and implement it as soon as possible.
Diversity is a good thing and it would be nice if there were more varied viewpoints on the nightly news, in America's newspapers, and other sources of news information. There have already been changes made in that direction (Fox News, Conservative radio talk shows, etc.) but Bernard Goldberg feels we have a long way to go until we achieve an unbiased media. Admitting there is a problem is the first step in the path toward recovery but as Goldberg points out, the media elite are arrogant, stubborn, and reluctant to admit any wrongdoing.
It will take some time before Goldberg's vision of an unbiased media ever becomes reality. Reading "Arrogance" is one step in the right direction toward understanding what the bias issue is all about and how it affects what we see each night on the evening news and what we read in our daily papers. It's a very good book by a man who has worked in the business for a long time and it has some interesting stories to tell about these people who control America's media outlets.
Finally I liked his "imagine if" technique. Imagine if Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, fill in the blank, had done xyz. Or imagine if a white group did this, or a conservative black man, etc. The double standard seems irrefutable, but then again I suppose I'm a bit biased.
Quick read, predictable- you probably know by the book jacket whether you're going to like it or not.