Goldberg On Their News example essay topic

Don't Let the Facts Stand in the Way of a Good Story! (Editorial Review for Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News) After twenty-eight years working for CBS, Bernard Goldberg decided that he no longer wanted to work for a news station he didn't admire. Thus, he resigned and began work on his book Bias; a book in which he merely draws attention to the media for reporting from a leftist perspective, preventing the audience from receiving an objective, unbiased view of what really goes on in our world. As an "old-fashioned liberal", as he calls himself, he does not attempt to gain conservative support for accusing liberals of bias.

Rather, he would prefer liberal support for acknowledging this problem in hopes of changing the face of news. He bases his book on his personal experience as a former news anchor for CBS. Despite popular belief, he meant no harm in his book (or in his editorials) to his previous employees. His only hope was to point out an alarmingly, already well-known fact; that reporters, even if unintentionally, at news stations like CBS, NBC, and ABC report the news from their liberal viewpoint, inhibiting their audiences's right to an accurate portrayal of our news. It all started out with an opinion editorial Goldberg wrote for the Wall Street Journal. After a man named Eric Engberg (and a once close friend to Goldberg) discussed upcoming presidential candidate Steven Forbes' flat tax proposal from a painfully, liberal view, attacking Forbes' proposal by using "tendentious terms like 'scheme' and 'elixir' " (Blowing the Whistle on CBS News, 1996) instead of just giving the straight facts, Goldberg wrote an op-ed in which he discreetly and politely discussed the bias that is so apparent in news stories such as Engberg's.

Goldberg mentioned in his book several times the crap he got from all of CBS and other news anchors for writing that article. Since then, his career at CBS went further and further down the drain until its eventual collapse. Goldberg makes several references of reporters like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw, showing them in a not-so-flattering light as anti-conservative anchors who not only attack anyone who dares differ in opinion from them, but who are also so close-minded in their views and beliefs that any critic who has something to say about their methods (such as Bernard Goldberg himself) better prepare themselves for these men's wrath. Goldberg does a great job of integrating all perspectives and sides when writing his book.

As well, he has surely done his share of research. He cites numerous newspaper and magazine articles, as well as quote upon quote upon quote from CBS insiders and fellow reporters. He refers to the constant refusal to have a single left-winger be labeled as "liberal" anywhere in the news, while always labeling those on the right as "conservative". He laughs at how the news has introduced Catherine MacKinnon (who once implied that all sexual intercourse was rape) as a "noted law professor" while Phyllis Schlafly is a "conservative spokeswoman" (CBS This Morning, 1981). By the same token, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page is conservative, but the equivalent editorial page in the New York Times is simply "middle of the road", as the Dan (CBS's nickname for Dan Rather) so eloquently puts it. But the fascinating reason why this book is so compelling is not just what is being said, but by whose mouth it is spewing from.

A former CBS news correspondent for nearly three decades, Goldberg is surely not conservative. His motive is not to gain conservatives' approval. In fact, his own political views, being that he's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and he has never voted for Ronald Reagan (a fact he mentions quite frequently), make it rather difficult to label him a "right-winger". All he wanted was his voice to be heard. He repeatedly voiced his concerns about the one-sided nature of coverage to the network executives over at CBS, only to have them either dismissed or completely ignored. Finally, after numerous attempts in all his twenty-eight years, he was left with no choice but to "blow the whistle" on his own industry.

The result is Bias. To further make his point about liberal bias in the news, Goldberg shows us who decided to discuss and print commentary on his first editorial. After its release in the Wall Street Journal, it was a very widely-talked about piece, bringing about lots of controversy from all sides. And while he was getting interviewed by so many news stations and newspapers, CBS, NBC, ABC, and the New York Times (all which happened to be liberal-oriented) left out any mention of his piece.

The New York Times printed absolutely nothing about his op-ed, when all other papers couldn't get enough of it, only lending credence to the belief that anything anti-liberal that might challenge these papers' and shows' credibility gets no coverage, whatsoever. Had they been credible and unbiased sources, as Goldberg points out, then surely they'd have no problem bringing Goldberg on their news shows to interview him and discuss his op-ed, or printing an article which bears at least a slight mention to the popular piece that no one could get enough of. For the few people who did make some mention of Goldberg's piece, they ended up looking rather stupid. Johnny Apple, of CNN, says "There's no suggestion that Goldberg went to CBS over a period of time and said, 'Our stuff is all one-sided, we " ve got to do something about this'... ".

(Reliable Sources, 1996). In response, Goldberg adamantly wonders how the hell Johnny knew that he didn't go to CBS. Not only was Johnny unjustified in making such a claim for he lacked any evidence to back himself up, but in fact, Goldberg had gone to CBS several times throughout his years and had Johnny taken the time to make the slightest effort and call him, then he'd have known. Not only that, but Howard Kurtz, of the Washington Post wrote that "Goldberg has told friends he feels bad about hurting Engberg, but that he has complained to CBS management about a liberal tilt for several years and been consistently ignored" (Washington Post, 1996).

Had Johnny picked up the Washington Post (which he surely reads, for he lives in Washington), then he'd retract his previous comment with an apology for his ignorance. And there goes another ignorant example of the media's bias and lack of competence in portraying all sides of the story. Throughout his book, Goldberg uses the art of examples to persuade. He uses every quote he can find and every article that might support his position.

Not that they " re not credible, but it appears that Goldberg is guilty of the same crime he accuses the media of committing. The problem is that it's only natural to bring in support that supports your side, and not the opposition. When Engberg brought in three tax experts that all said that Forbes' flat tax was stupid, Goldberg attacked him for not finding an expert who supported the proposal. It was extremely evident that when Engberg set out to find experts, any that he interviewed that were for the proposal were kindly thanked and dismissed. Why would Engberg, whose sole purpose was to show that the flat tax was bad, bring in an expert that he knew would screw up the whole point of his presentation? In the same manner, Goldberg uses quotes to support his message, conveniently leaving out any information to the contrary.

He uses quotes from conservatives, and quotes from liberals who agree that the media is tilted towards the left. Not that Goldberg is wrong (and I think it's safe to say that all can agree that there is a definite leftward bias in the news), just that he is guilty of conveniently using only what helps his message, not opposes it. Of course, only a stupid man would quote anything that does not progress his case, for then his entire book would be futile if he incorporated both sides (there is a bias and there is not a bias). His book would no longer be persuasive, but neutral, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions.

That is not what Goldberg wants. He does not want the public to arrive at whatever conclusion they choose. He wants them all to know that we are, in fact, facing a huge problem with liberal bias in the news media. "There's an old saying in the newsroom: Don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story!" (Bias, 2002).

According to Goldberg, there are many social problems in the world today that are not being portrayed by the news teams accurately. Personally, I was appalled to read how manipulative the news really can be. Apparently, when Reagan was our president, there was a huge problem with homeless people. It was on the news practically daily during his administration, as well as Bush Sr.'s too, yet the moment Clinton was sworn into office, the problem miraculously disappeared. Of course, the problem itself didn't disappear, just the news' coverage of it. And since our only access to this kind of information lies within in our news, it appeared that if it was no longer reported, then it was no longer a problem, right?

What actually happened is that the media just chose when they wanted to cover the problem (it has always been a problem and it always will be a problem). With a Democratic president, the news anchor no longer felt that they wanted to draw attention to the homeless on our streets. But of course, when Bush Jr. was elected president, the problem of homelessness, once again, arose. Goldberg makes sure to mention several times that the news station correspondents do not sit in their offices and plan that they are going to deceive the public. It is not their intention (at least their conscious intention) to report the news so unbelievably biased; it just conveniently works out that way. In his mind, if conservatives took over the news, then we'd have the same result of a rightward bias.

This, he says, is why it is so big of a problem. If Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings were aware of their bias, then they might be able and willing to fix this problem. It's because they lack any awareness of their liberal slant that they get so ticked off when accused. To them, the left view is how it should be and anything to the right of the center (the center being their middle of the road views) is unreasonable and to deviate from what should come naturally is wrong. Thus, they believe the way they report is normal and anyone who has a different opinion needs to be addressed and labeled as "right-wing", since "left-wing" is merely normal and needs no mention. Goldberg does an excellent job in using his own, authentic experiences in proving his point.

When he wanted to do a piece on Eye to Eye on liberal bias in the news in 1993, he went to his boss Andrew Heyward, who was extremely unenthusiastic. Eventually, he agreed, under one condition: "You can't ask Dan any tough questions" (CBS's Eye to Eye Office, 1993). Goldberg couldn't believe his ears. How could a reporter, who's career relies purely on tough questions, conduct an interview that revolves around tough questions to get to the root of the problem without asking tough questions? Apparently, Heyward had no interest in finding out if there really was a liberal bias, only in shutting Goldberg up. In fact, he later proved Goldberg's point, saying "Look Bernie, of course there's a liberal bias in the news.

All the networks tilt left. Come on, we all know it-the whole damn world knows it- but that doesn't mean we have to put it on the air!" (CBS's Eye to Eye office, 1993). He even goes on to say, "If you repeat any of this, I'll deny it". What does this show? That some higher-ups are very aware of the bias problem, just like the public, and do not desire to have their dirty laundry aired in public.

And that is exactly what Bernie did. And that is exactly why he no longer works for CBS. Bernie portrays the media's distortion with the AIDS epidemic (and how it never really was the "Killer Next Door", despite the news' portrayal of it). When it was advantageous for the networks' ratings to scare the majority of our population (the middle-class, heterosexual whites) by telling them that they could get AIDS because it was creeping into their community, they did exactly that. And in fact, years later, AIDS still has yet to make its way into the heterosexual community.

Bernie also talks about how the news targets men in fear of not wanting to rub feminists the wrong way (by going so far out of their way not to offend woman, that they end up offending men). Apparently, it's ok to joke about castrating a man who jilted a woman at the altar, but had a man joked about cutting off a woman's breasts for revenge, the press would be all over him. There are even reports about men who (after taking DNA tests and proving that they are not the fathers of suspected sons) are still forced to pay child support for children that were fathered by other men. And then there were reports about how it was not "politically correct" to call a man "black", so the networks forced their reporter to refer to this man as "African-american", even though he was not the slightest bit American. The networks didn't care though; they just didn't want any complaints for using such an un-politically correct term.

And then of course, Bernie talks about how it was perfectly acceptable for Roxanne Russell, an anchor for the CBS News Washington bureau, to nonchalantly refer to a conservative activist as "Gary Bauer, the little nut from the Christian group" (CBS Weekend News, 1999). Of course, as Goldberg parallels, had this "nut" been black, Jewish, or gay, Russell would have been fired so fast had she used the same terminology. Bias in the news is happening everywhere, and no one seems to care to change it, which is why Bernard Goldberg has written this book. While Rather, Jennings, and Brokaw and the rest of his former employees at CBS might think he is a traitor, Goldberg had no intention of "selling them out". He did not want them fired; he did not even want them reprimanded. All he was hoping for when he wrote his editorials and this book was to shed some light on this problem that is constantly prevailing.

And for that, Bernard Goldberg should be praised. He could have easily written his editorials anonymously, yet he chose to attach his name to them. Why? Because he did not fear what he knew would accrue from his actions. He was not selfish and he believed that if they were going to fire him for something so innocent (voicing an opinion that is so widely-shared), then he didn't want to work for an industry like that anyways. And so he resigned and wrote this book; a book that "blew the whistle" on the true nature of our news.