What do you think?
Rate this book
Arrogance: Rescuing America From The Media Elite
Former CBS News correspondent Goldberg cites example after example of what he identifies as distorted reporting and asserts that these examples prove the pervasiveness of a liberal bias in the mainstream media. His credibility is diminished by a breathless, scattershot approach and sketchy documentation of examples (many taken out of context); but his points seem to be that attuned citizens will find such examples everywhere they look and that honest journalists should open their eyes. He includes a section of contact information for conservative organizations and think tanks.
328 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2003
9 people are currently reading
276 people want to read
About the author
Bernard Goldberg
16 books26 followersAmerican writer, journalist, and political pundit. Goldberg has won twelve Emmy Awards during his career. He is currently a commentator for Fox News and a correspondent for HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel.
From 1972 to 1974 he worked for CBS News as a producer in Atlanta; he became a reporter in 1974 and correspondent in 1976.
Goldberg frequently contributed to the CBS Evening News and CBS newsmagazines Eye to Eye with Connie Chung and 48 Hours.
From 1972 to 1974 he worked for CBS News as a producer in Atlanta; he became a reporter in 1974 and correspondent in 1976.
Goldberg frequently contributed to the CBS Evening News and CBS newsmagazines Eye to Eye with Connie Chung and 48 Hours.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
November 16, 2014
Arrogant and biased.
August 24, 2017
I was in a bookstore one day several years ago and I saw this book near the counter. I picked it up on a whim and I only got around to reading it late last year. This is non-fiction so I can't use my usual method of analysis but I will still assign a grade.
Disclaimer: I'm deliberately avoiding the politics and issues that he talks about in his book because they are irrelevant to my purpose. I'm only interested in the logic of his arguments and the evidence he provides for his arguments.
Mr. Goldberg makes a lot of good points. For instance, when he states that "The New York Times has a bias" he provides the following explanation. This is the idea that people of a certain stance started working for New York Times during the 60s, a couple rose to high positions within it over time, and valued pushing their goals more than being objective. Now the paper as a whole is different than what it used to be. I find this to be within reason; certainly the big wigs in a media company can drastically change the culture and output of such a company.
Then, Mr. Goldberg asserts, because the New York Times is the "paper of record", other media outlets play Follow The Leader. I can also see something like that happening from seeing similar articles across many papers across several months. This is just one example where I think he has a point. If he's right about half of his total arguments then that would point to a problem in general media. However, his personal problem is that he lacks professionalism and this undermines all of his arguments. Again, I will only show a sample of examples.
The first sign of a lack professionalism: trashing reviewers.
In this book, he writes at length about reception of his first book, which covers the same idea of a political bias in general media. In short, a lot of people thought poorly of it and expressed these opinions. The subject is certainly relevant but given his lack of professionalism it looks like he's trashing his reviewers and throwing a tantrum about media outlets that didn't give him the coverage that he wanted. This is what you call an "Author Behaving Badly".
The second sign of a lack professionalism: creating straw men
He talks as if the anger from his former co-workers regarding his previous book is because they're upset that he's exposing their bias, puncturing their bubble, etc. However, I do not find that to be the case. When you say things like "sell their children into prostitution if it meant getting more air time" (page 221, the start of the chapter "liberal bias? Never mind!") anyone would be angered. In addition to this, when referring to them he creates a straw man to make them look bad; a naïve, pampered, stuck-up elitist who claims to be smart but doesn't know anything at all and believes their audience is a group of unwashed, simple-minded hicks. It sounds like he just didn't like or didn't agree with his former co-workers and is venting frustration with name calling.
The third sign of a lack professionalism: reliance on anecdotes
His reliance on anecdotes is also a strike against his argument, regardless of what point he is trying to make. If someone can't verify his sources and information then he might as well be making it up. Sure one could argue that the people he's talking about would never admit to their bias when asked to verify, and it is a good point. However, it also allows Mr. Goldberg to say whatever he wants because it can't be properly cited. It's basically gossip.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite" a C
Disclaimer: I'm deliberately avoiding the politics and issues that he talks about in his book because they are irrelevant to my purpose. I'm only interested in the logic of his arguments and the evidence he provides for his arguments.
Mr. Goldberg makes a lot of good points. For instance, when he states that "The New York Times has a bias" he provides the following explanation. This is the idea that people of a certain stance started working for New York Times during the 60s, a couple rose to high positions within it over time, and valued pushing their goals more than being objective. Now the paper as a whole is different than what it used to be. I find this to be within reason; certainly the big wigs in a media company can drastically change the culture and output of such a company.
Then, Mr. Goldberg asserts, because the New York Times is the "paper of record", other media outlets play Follow The Leader. I can also see something like that happening from seeing similar articles across many papers across several months. This is just one example where I think he has a point. If he's right about half of his total arguments then that would point to a problem in general media. However, his personal problem is that he lacks professionalism and this undermines all of his arguments. Again, I will only show a sample of examples.
The first sign of a lack professionalism: trashing reviewers.
In this book, he writes at length about reception of his first book, which covers the same idea of a political bias in general media. In short, a lot of people thought poorly of it and expressed these opinions. The subject is certainly relevant but given his lack of professionalism it looks like he's trashing his reviewers and throwing a tantrum about media outlets that didn't give him the coverage that he wanted. This is what you call an "Author Behaving Badly".
The second sign of a lack professionalism: creating straw men
He talks as if the anger from his former co-workers regarding his previous book is because they're upset that he's exposing their bias, puncturing their bubble, etc. However, I do not find that to be the case. When you say things like "sell their children into prostitution if it meant getting more air time" (page 221, the start of the chapter "liberal bias? Never mind!") anyone would be angered. In addition to this, when referring to them he creates a straw man to make them look bad; a naïve, pampered, stuck-up elitist who claims to be smart but doesn't know anything at all and believes their audience is a group of unwashed, simple-minded hicks. It sounds like he just didn't like or didn't agree with his former co-workers and is venting frustration with name calling.
The third sign of a lack professionalism: reliance on anecdotes
His reliance on anecdotes is also a strike against his argument, regardless of what point he is trying to make. If someone can't verify his sources and information then he might as well be making it up. Sure one could argue that the people he's talking about would never admit to their bias when asked to verify, and it is a good point. However, it also allows Mr. Goldberg to say whatever he wants because it can't be properly cited. It's basically gossip.
Trickster Eric Novels gives "Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite" a C
February 14, 2017
Arrogance brings about many good points about the media bias, but ultimately the author ends up coming off as a right wing nutter.
Unconsciously, the author falls prey to many of the flaws that he himself points out in the book. The author is very intelligent and his journalistic skills let you see a wider scope on many issues, but he turns mostly a blind eye to right wing abuses of the media, or casts them off as nothing big. This is a hugely hypocritical book. If only the author had the courage to take the 12 step program of bias that he believes is necessary for the rest of the 'media elite'.
One of the author's biggest problems (besides his nasal voice, which is unsuitable for an audio book), is the casting of everything into his specific mold. Everything has to be about his issue. He is intelligent enough to see other points of views, but narrow-mindly presumes that his issue must be the center of the universe. Case: the Andy Rooney calling Dan Rather a liberal issue. Working for the same company, the issue is that you can not be downplaying other members of your team publicly. However, Goldberg naiively tries to push the issue of bias, whereas that is not the main issue at all. It is no wonder that people get fed up with the bullheaded author.
Goldberg pushes the stories too far out of context, using mostly anecdotal evidence and not coming up with hard facts. He uses hyperbole on the other side's arguments, methodically setting up his strawmen to knock them down viciously. Even while agreeing with him on many of the issues, his use of argument is disingenuous at best. CDs 2,3, and 5 were mostly tolerable, but CDs 1 and 4 were so painful, I found myself shouting at the top of my lungs all the arguments that the author seemed to have 'conveniently forgotten'. Arrogance is more appropriate as a self-diagnosis of the book itself.
Overall, this book does the world a disservice. Instead of raising meaningful discussion about media bias, it ultimately decides to push the sides further apart with it's own biased hackery.
Unconsciously, the author falls prey to many of the flaws that he himself points out in the book. The author is very intelligent and his journalistic skills let you see a wider scope on many issues, but he turns mostly a blind eye to right wing abuses of the media, or casts them off as nothing big. This is a hugely hypocritical book. If only the author had the courage to take the 12 step program of bias that he believes is necessary for the rest of the 'media elite'.
One of the author's biggest problems (besides his nasal voice, which is unsuitable for an audio book), is the casting of everything into his specific mold. Everything has to be about his issue. He is intelligent enough to see other points of views, but narrow-mindly presumes that his issue must be the center of the universe. Case: the Andy Rooney calling Dan Rather a liberal issue. Working for the same company, the issue is that you can not be downplaying other members of your team publicly. However, Goldberg naiively tries to push the issue of bias, whereas that is not the main issue at all. It is no wonder that people get fed up with the bullheaded author.
Goldberg pushes the stories too far out of context, using mostly anecdotal evidence and not coming up with hard facts. He uses hyperbole on the other side's arguments, methodically setting up his strawmen to knock them down viciously. Even while agreeing with him on many of the issues, his use of argument is disingenuous at best. CDs 2,3, and 5 were mostly tolerable, but CDs 1 and 4 were so painful, I found myself shouting at the top of my lungs all the arguments that the author seemed to have 'conveniently forgotten'. Arrogance is more appropriate as a self-diagnosis of the book itself.
Overall, this book does the world a disservice. Instead of raising meaningful discussion about media bias, it ultimately decides to push the sides further apart with it's own biased hackery.
November 7, 2011
Arrogance by Bernard Golberg illustrates how far the national news media has strayed from objective news reporting and the reasons this has and is occuring. Goldberg provides many examples of reporting bias and the groupthink that is occuring in or nation's newsrooms.
I was already aware of the media bias and liberal PC propaganda that is shaping what is presented as news.
I actually think that Goldberg didn't reach the bottom of the well regarding the reason's why this is occuring. I think there a direct government connection which puts pressure on network newsrooms to report the news in a certain way.
At the end of the book, Goldberg offers a 12 step style program of recovery as a means of helping the news media return to more balanced reporting.
I liked the book but I didn't love it.
I was already aware of the media bias and liberal PC propaganda that is shaping what is presented as news.
I actually think that Goldberg didn't reach the bottom of the well regarding the reason's why this is occuring. I think there a direct government connection which puts pressure on network newsrooms to report the news in a certain way.
At the end of the book, Goldberg offers a 12 step style program of recovery as a means of helping the news media return to more balanced reporting.
I liked the book but I didn't love it.
August 26, 2014
ARROGANCE reiterates all the same points that Mr. Goldberg previously made in BIAS. Not that that's a bad thing, because he provides plenty of all-new examples to help bolster his initial argument.
This book delves a little more deeply into the reasons behind liberal bias in the news media. Without giving the book away, let's just say it all boils down to pressure from special interest lobbies, over-reliance on the NEW YORK TIMES in deciding what topics are important and which angles should be discussed, and a lack of regard for opinions that run counter to what the powers-that-be perceive as conventional wisdom.
It's all very interesting, but don't expect anything too well-written or scholarly--just a lot of level-headed observations passed on in a very informal, emotionally charged style.
(The book also includes related interviews with Tim Russert and Bob Costas.)
This book delves a little more deeply into the reasons behind liberal bias in the news media. Without giving the book away, let's just say it all boils down to pressure from special interest lobbies, over-reliance on the NEW YORK TIMES in deciding what topics are important and which angles should be discussed, and a lack of regard for opinions that run counter to what the powers-that-be perceive as conventional wisdom.
It's all very interesting, but don't expect anything too well-written or scholarly--just a lot of level-headed observations passed on in a very informal, emotionally charged style.
(The book also includes related interviews with Tim Russert and Bob Costas.)
September 21, 2010
here's a quote that i liked:
"one of the clearest examples of that disdain--not so subtle in this case--is when evan thomas of newsweek went on a tv news talk show and dismissed paula jones as 'some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks'--a nasty remark, which would never have been tolerated (by his bosses and other presumably civil people if the prejudice were about race instead of class."
what you do is you substitute different words, pc-words, or better yet, not-pc words for the snippet from evan thomas and replay it and imagine the outrage and then you need to ask yourself the next time you hear something like it, for you will hear something like it, now, today, ask yourself if goldberg is saying anything you weren't aware of before reading.
a good read.
"one of the clearest examples of that disdain--not so subtle in this case--is when evan thomas of newsweek went on a tv news talk show and dismissed paula jones as 'some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks'--a nasty remark, which would never have been tolerated (by his bosses and other presumably civil people if the prejudice were about race instead of class."
what you do is you substitute different words, pc-words, or better yet, not-pc words for the snippet from evan thomas and replay it and imagine the outrage and then you need to ask yourself the next time you hear something like it, for you will hear something like it, now, today, ask yourself if goldberg is saying anything you weren't aware of before reading.
a good read.
April 7, 2017
Rating - 6.7
Same message and premise as Bias, except that it is far more opinionated and far less factual; Comes across as self-glorified & hypocritical which clouds his argument of a cloaked liberal bias in the media
Bias in the media in itself is a controversial topic as how can one keep their opinions absent when reporting the news; A more structured & balanced approach is warranted to tackle this political issue
Same message and premise as Bias, except that it is far more opinionated and far less factual; Comes across as self-glorified & hypocritical which clouds his argument of a cloaked liberal bias in the media
Bias in the media in itself is a controversial topic as how can one keep their opinions absent when reporting the news; A more structured & balanced approach is warranted to tackle this political issue
May 8, 2009
Goldberg gets right to the point and backs it up with numerous evidentiary stories: The mainstream media is hopelessly liberal and so much so that they think only nuts have views differing from their views. We are fed increasingly slanted and biased stories to swing public opinion. It's compelling book done in an ethical and forthright journalistic style.
October 29, 2014
I enjoyed this book for the most part though I did find the anecdotes become a little repetitive. My major point of disagreement was when he tried to claim that the Pentagon is not a legitimate military target. Since it is the US military headquarters, this is a ludicrous argument.
October 29, 2008
Another fantastic Goldberg book. He is such a great writer, and there is so much to be learned from any of his publishings.
October 26, 2010
5* need I say anymore?
July 30, 2012
Goldberg is right on, as usual.
August 1, 2009
I listened to this book on tape. I got tired of the sense of "outrage" that the author used throughout the work. After a while, it all began to blur. I suppose the saddest thing about this work is that he is entirely right that the media have biases. And that self-appointed societal critics are the main source of daily news and worldview to a large group of people is a testament to the failure of our educational system to teach people to think critically and read, or listen, to a wide range of views. In several cases, citing the worst examples of liberal bias ended up being like jousting with straw men. I think that even liberals would agree with him that these cases show an abuse of power. In the end, this book amounts to a series of anecdotes about abuses that the author doesn't like. Frankly, I agreed with the author in most cases. But the holier-than-thou tone and the implication of either a diabolical conspiracy or rampant stupidity in journalists were real turnoffs. In some ways, this book was written as if directed to people who needed to be bludgeoned over the head to face facts. In the end, if you are only getting your news from one source, then you are bound to be misinformed, and reading this book is not going to change the behavior patterns of benighted people.
April 5, 2014
I enjoy watching Bernard Goldberg on TV when he comments on today's media. He talks like a "regular guy" and always has such insight. I bought this (used) audiobook a couple of years ago, then had second thoughts about reading it, as it was written in 2003 and many opinion-based books lose their relevance as the years go by. Didn't want to waste my time ... so many books, so little time, ya know? But after finishing another book yesterday, I wanted something completely different from the stuff I've been reading lately, so I pulled Arrogance and breezed through it. Still totally relevant! It's probably too bad I have to say this, but he could have written this book last month. All of his observations about the media are still true; maybe things are worse. Worth reading!
January 30, 2008
Bias shed light on the tactics, Arrogance exposes their motivation.
February 7, 2008
Simular to Bias but still worth it. Wow he hates Dan.
June 10, 2008
This book is interesting and not an "easy" read. There are a lot of details and as with most books of this type you need to keep an open mind and don't believe every thing you read.
Read
July 7, 2008eye-opening book and shows how pervasive, and subtle, liberal bias is in all types of media. Should be read by every American, as well as his "Bias".
July 22, 2013
used audiobook
Read
July 20, 2015Mr. Goldberg's story about Dan Rather as told to Don Imus is a wonderful foreshadowing to this book.
November 15, 2015
Another outstanding book on the media by Bernard Goldberg. READ THIS BOOK!!
January 20, 2016
Ripped those who ignore the obviousness of truth in BIAS. Nice follow-up. Rings true again.
February 12, 2017
Start with Bias, which was excellent. This is a good follow-up.
February 22, 2021
Lepší než Goldbergova předchozí kniha Bias (už necítil takovou potřebu obhajovat se), ačkoli na některých místech mi přišel až zbytečně útočný, neboť jeho daty podložená fakta hovořila za vše. A třebaže kniha vyšla už před 17 lety, a není tedy tak úplně aktuální, jedno platí dnes stejně jako tehdy (a vlastně možná mnohem víc vzhledem k současným událostem): liberálové zapomněli, co znamená být liberály. Kdo "nedrží basu", musí být umlčen, zdiskreditován, pošpiněn, a pokud možno i zbaven zaměstnání. Pluralita názorů je sice teoreticky zajištěna ústavou, avšak zcela beztrestně pošlapávána soukromými subjekty, jako jsou nadnárodní společnosti a SocMed.
March 27, 2019
An exploration into an important, substantial issue bogged down entirely by the author's adolescent tone and tendency to lend his writing to whining rather than producing meaningful writing. Goldberg effectively turns potential readers away from his text and likely reaffirms perceptions on conservative media that he sought to refute.
July 5, 2020
It is important to understand, when reading this book, that the author is, what he describes, as a classic liberal, not a right wing conservative. He was a journalist for CBS News from 1972 to 2000, 28 years. This book, published in 2003, is a follow up to the book Bias, which he published in 2002. I ordered this book because I read Bias several years ago. Though Mr. Goldberg is a liberal and agrees with many of the positions of what is presented in the print and broadcast news, his integrity as a journalist calls into question the practices of dishonesty in the presentation of the news. The duty of journalists is to report the news objectively and to present all sides of the news stories, which is not being done in the mainstream media. I would recommend reading Bias before this one, but this is a good stand alone book.
It is important to differentiate between the roles of commentators or opinion roles and news journalist roles. News journalists have the obligation to report fair, accurately, and completely. This means giving all sides of the issues, not just what the reporter thinks is the "right" side of the issue. One of his points is that, although it is important to have diversity in the news rooms relative to gender, race, etc., it is also important to have diversity of thought and ideals, as well. In the old Dragnet series shows, many may remember the phrase, "Just the facts..." being used often. This is part of what is promoted in this book. By examples, he shows how many stories are slanted by what the news reports leave out as much as what they put in to slant the stories toward certain agendas. Mr. Goldberg's point is that the news should be reported accurately and without bias to allow the viewer or reader to form opinions, not have them forced on them. News stories should not be tempered by how certain groups may want them to slant the public's view of that group, or image based slants.
Here is one example: Appalachian School of Law shooting 16 Jan 2002 was an incident where a 46 year old immigrant from Nigeria killed three and wounded three others. He was subsequently subdued by three other students who stopped this killing spree. It was reported that three students "pounced on" and "tackled" the gunman. It was what was left OUT of the story that is also important. It was left out because it didn't fit the agenda of the "media elite" reporting the story. Out of 208 news stories reporting the incident, ONLY 4 mentioned that two of the men who stopped the shooting spree rushed to their vehicles and came back with their own guns and, without firing them, showed the willingness to use force and thus stopped the spree. The point the author makes is that the news should be reported completely without bias and should be the complete story.
Another case of misleading, or rather just plain false, reporting relates to crimes in Great Britain. In 1997 Great Britain banned handguns. Media reported in May 2000 that, "In general, crime rates in Britain are much lower than in the United States..." but they did not report that in the two years after the handgun ban, violent crimes in Britain went up 40% and from April to November 2001 people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53%; the guns that were banned and taken from law abiding citizens.
Another of the author's points is that there is a broad spectrum of opinions in this country and views range from liberal to center (middle of the road) to conservative. The mainstream media is filled with those who are left-wing liberals and they arrogantly think that they are middle of the road and represent the correct views that all of America should think are correct. They also refer to many viewers as uneducated double-wide trailer trash in their conversations in the news rooms. This, of course, is an attitude of arrogance.
He also addresses journalism schools and how difficult it is to get through Columbia School of Journalism as a conservative. He sites one particular assignment given to a conservative female student that she showed him. She had approached the professor and stated that the assignment was given such that it had pre-conceived outcomes. The student sent an e-mail objecting to having an outcome before even starting the research for the story, and the student was scorned for that. My younger son was in journalism school at University of North Alabama in Florence and it actually drove him to quit that endeavor because, as he told me, the professors were not teaching HOW to research, write, and pursue a story but were telling them WHAT to write and what to believe.
That is not journalism. It was actually refreshing to read this, written by a liberal, about liberal bias and arrogance in the mainstream news media. "Just give us the news, all sides of it, and let US decide what we think about it; untainted, unvarnished, and unslanted."
I would recommend this book.
It is important to differentiate between the roles of commentators or opinion roles and news journalist roles. News journalists have the obligation to report fair, accurately, and completely. This means giving all sides of the issues, not just what the reporter thinks is the "right" side of the issue. One of his points is that, although it is important to have diversity in the news rooms relative to gender, race, etc., it is also important to have diversity of thought and ideals, as well. In the old Dragnet series shows, many may remember the phrase, "Just the facts..." being used often. This is part of what is promoted in this book. By examples, he shows how many stories are slanted by what the news reports leave out as much as what they put in to slant the stories toward certain agendas. Mr. Goldberg's point is that the news should be reported accurately and without bias to allow the viewer or reader to form opinions, not have them forced on them. News stories should not be tempered by how certain groups may want them to slant the public's view of that group, or image based slants.
Here is one example: Appalachian School of Law shooting 16 Jan 2002 was an incident where a 46 year old immigrant from Nigeria killed three and wounded three others. He was subsequently subdued by three other students who stopped this killing spree. It was reported that three students "pounced on" and "tackled" the gunman. It was what was left OUT of the story that is also important. It was left out because it didn't fit the agenda of the "media elite" reporting the story. Out of 208 news stories reporting the incident, ONLY 4 mentioned that two of the men who stopped the shooting spree rushed to their vehicles and came back with their own guns and, without firing them, showed the willingness to use force and thus stopped the spree. The point the author makes is that the news should be reported completely without bias and should be the complete story.
Another case of misleading, or rather just plain false, reporting relates to crimes in Great Britain. In 1997 Great Britain banned handguns. Media reported in May 2000 that, "In general, crime rates in Britain are much lower than in the United States..." but they did not report that in the two years after the handgun ban, violent crimes in Britain went up 40% and from April to November 2001 people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53%; the guns that were banned and taken from law abiding citizens.
Another of the author's points is that there is a broad spectrum of opinions in this country and views range from liberal to center (middle of the road) to conservative. The mainstream media is filled with those who are left-wing liberals and they arrogantly think that they are middle of the road and represent the correct views that all of America should think are correct. They also refer to many viewers as uneducated double-wide trailer trash in their conversations in the news rooms. This, of course, is an attitude of arrogance.
He also addresses journalism schools and how difficult it is to get through Columbia School of Journalism as a conservative. He sites one particular assignment given to a conservative female student that she showed him. She had approached the professor and stated that the assignment was given such that it had pre-conceived outcomes. The student sent an e-mail objecting to having an outcome before even starting the research for the story, and the student was scorned for that. My younger son was in journalism school at University of North Alabama in Florence and it actually drove him to quit that endeavor because, as he told me, the professors were not teaching HOW to research, write, and pursue a story but were telling them WHAT to write and what to believe.
That is not journalism. It was actually refreshing to read this, written by a liberal, about liberal bias and arrogance in the mainstream news media. "Just give us the news, all sides of it, and let US decide what we think about it; untainted, unvarnished, and unslanted."
I would recommend this book.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews