Newt's Latest Book Review
Bias: A CBS
Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
by Bernard Goldberg
I'll start by
stating that allowing me to review a book about bias in the news
media might almost seem unfair. After all, I was portrayed on the
cover of Time Magazine just before Christmas, 1994 as Scrooge.
They portrayed me holding Tiny Tim's crutch, but just holding the
crutch wasn't enough, they had to show me with the little guy's
broken crutch. The title on the cover was "How Mean will
Gingrich's America be to the Poor?" You could tell it was
unbiased because there was a question mark. Not to be outdone,
the editors of Newsweek decided that I more resembled a Doctor
Zeuss figure, the cover exclaiming, "The Grinch that stole
Christmas". All of this before I had served a single day as
Speaker of the House. Of course, being a conservative Republican
who had watched President Reagan's entire career I knew that the
New York based elite media would have a hard time understanding
any values other than their own.
Now we have in Bernard Goldberg's memoir-expose-essay a very
revealing portrait of the television side of that elite bias. It
is a good read Goldberg is a good story teller. It is clear he is
angry with CBS News in general and Dan Rather in particular. The
book is worth the cover price if only to enjoy, at a slightly
less than dignified level, the sheer viciousness of the payback.
Purely and simply, they got Goldberg and now he is getting them.
Anyone who has ever gotten mad at the liberal bias in the media
will find some satisfaction in this part of the book.
But in a real way, Goldberg has done a service by telling insider
stories out of school. He describes the bias inherent in ensuring
that minorities do not look bad against the countervailing bias
in not showing too many minorities because it might hurt ratings
- the gap between liberal guilt and liberal behavior. Goldberg
suggests that affirmative action commitment might lead senior
television personalities to agree to step down as long as a woman
or a minority personality replaces them. He notes that pocketbook
interests will block enthusiasm for affirmative action, which is
terrific if it is applied to others but not a good idea if
applied to their industry.
Goldberg is at his strongest in outlining the almost paranoid and
narcissistic sensitivity of the media to criticism directed at
itself. Hypocrisy dominates an industry that treasures
whistleblowers from any other trade but isolates and seeks to
expel any in their own business.
The book makes a strong case that liberal media bias led to a
remarkable increase in reporting on homelessness under Presidents
Reagan and Bush followed by its magic disappearance under
President Clinton and its sudden (within weeks) reappearance
under President George W. Bush. The calendar precision of
coverage would be worth a serious expose just on the topic of
overt bias for political effect except who would do the expose?
Goldberg is on much weaker ground in his argument about children
and the impact of childcare. As an historian I found his case
here far too narrow and far less convincing than any other part
of the book. I felt he had a belief to articulate and then built
a case around his prior conviction. This is however a very small
caveat in a fascinating book and a terrific read.
I should note in my own experience of bias that Goldberg cites
Ben Watenberg's observation that 59%of the reporters thought the
"Contract with America" was an 'election year gimmick'
while only 3% thought it was 'serious.' That might have been fair
in 1994 during the election. However, even after we had acted on
and passed nine of the ten items in the House (we lost only one
on a constitutional amendment requiring a 2/3 majority for term
limits but we voted on it within the time limits promised by the
contract) and ultimately got 70% of the Contract enacted into
law, the elite media continued to report that the Contract had
disappeared or been forgotten. So despite the first comprehensive
welfare reform in 68 years, the first tax cuts in 17 years, the
first increase in defense spending in over a decade, the first
four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920s we still had
not accomplished anything according to the liberal media
assertions.
Goldberg cites Peter Jennings' view on the 1994 election results
"Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two
year old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums; the
stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming...Imagine a nation
full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper
tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don't have to be
dirty words . . . the nation can't be run by an angry two year
old." Given that impartial unbiased analysis of an historic
election in which nine million more Americans voted Republican
than in 1990 (the largest one party off year increase in American
history) and the Republicans unexpectedly won control for the
first time in 40years, it is little wonder the liberal media
could not understand either the American people or the
conservatives they had put in charge. The admirable thing about
Jennings was that he was open in his contempt and dislike for
what we were doing. The hard thing to deal with in so many of his
colleagues was their pretence of moralistic professionalism while
in fact they shared the same biases. Goldberg simply makes clear
how deep and persistent these biases are.
One of the news channels or networks ought to take Goldberg up on
his argument and give him a half hour every week to explore bias
in the media. It would be a lively program. If he is as
aggressive and risk taking on air as he is in this book it would
be a well watched and much talked about show. His book is.