Chicago critic flays Goldberg

Discuss the various aspects of Bernard Goldberg's "Bias," the smash bestseller with all the inside baseball from one of their own! Discuss the various aspects of Arrogance, the 2nd NYT's bestseller.

Chicago critic flays Goldberg

Unread postby buddinganarchist » Sat May 05, 2007 10:02 am

good stuff. shows what a fraud Goldberg's bias nonsense is.

http://www.chicagomediawatch.org/02_1_bias.shtml

Gotta check those sources, Goldberg. Lazy reporting only shows your bias, not ours. This is not a hit job. If you are going to slay other people, you have to take the heat as well, especially when you get the information so wrong. Too many people actually believe this stuff about liberal bias. This is why your new book is not selling as well.
buddinganarchist
Media observer
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:41 pm

Chicago critic flays Goldberg

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Unread postby Cortese » Sat May 05, 2007 11:48 am

I guess my first question would be what are the credentials of the author of that piece? I would say that Bernie's 20-some years at CBS make him a subject matter expert on how the media works.

It's really not that hard to see bias in the media though, especially in regards with the War in Iraq. MNF-I publishes daily news items ranging from troop deaths to progress on construction projects to the shifting alliances of the Sunni sheiks now fighting Al Qaeda. But which pieces do the media seem to choose most often? I think you know the answer to that question as well as I do.
Life-long fan of the Military/Industrial/Janitorial/Custodial/Welfare-State/Pork-Laden/Mortgage & Bank Bailout Complex
User avatar
Cortese
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:08 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Chicago critic flays Goldberg

Unread postby MrSinatra » Sat May 05, 2007 1:22 pm

buddinganarchist wrote:good stuff. shows what a fraud Goldberg's bias nonsense is.

http://www.chicagomediawatch.org/02_1_bias.shtml

Gotta check those sources, Goldberg. Lazy reporting only shows your bias, not ours. This is not a hit job. If you are going to slay other people, you have to take the heat as well, especially when you get the information so wrong. Too many people actually believe this stuff about liberal bias. This is why your new book is not selling as well.


you are one post away from being banned.

you want to make a counterpoint? fine, do it civilly. but that post above is rude, as is the article it references. u are a GUEST here, don't be classless.

and the article by the way, is meaningless tripe.
SYF Rocks!
www.LION-Radio.org

steve1633 wrote:if you havent realized yet that pp posts offer little in the way of intelligent discourse then youre dumber than i suspected, if its just easier to argue with someone like her then ya go ahead keep it up.
User avatar
MrSinatra
Mod Team
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:24 am
Location: 6' under

Re: Chicago critic flays Goldberg

Unread postby JmThms » Tue May 08, 2007 7:37 am

buddinganarchist wrote:good stuff. shows what a fraud Goldberg's bias nonsense is.

http://www.chicagomediawatch.org/02_1_bias.shtml

Gotta check those sources, Goldberg. Lazy reporting only shows your bias, not ours. This is not a hit job. If you are going to slay other people, you have to take the heat as well, especially when you get the information so wrong. Too many people actually believe this stuff about liberal bias. This is why your new book is not selling as well.


This hyperlinked piece is so divorced from reality one has to wonder whether it is an intentional spoof of liberals.
"A liberal is someone who is so broadminded they can't even take their own side in a fight"
- unknown

"[to Liberals] Loving America is too simple an emotion. To be nuanced you have to hate it a little."
- Ann Coulter
JmThms
Media observer
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:55 am
Location: San Diego

Unread postby steve1633 » Tue May 08, 2007 3:27 pm

It brings up good points though, I won't fight you on the idea that the media is socially liberal (although I think that's a pretty lofty statement that needs more evidence than I've seen) but fiscally the media is as conservative as can be. The media is big business and conservatives have been buddies with big business for years. If you're going to discuss media bias shouldn't you discuss the fact that the media regularly ignores corporations who are fined for environmental infractions or that the media only mentions in passing that oil companies are making record profits, being subsidised by the federal government and charging record prices for gasoline? And I'm sure big oil isn't the only industry getting the governments help. Also, why does the media so routinely ignore governmental figures ties to big business, why does it take the most extreme left bit of the media to report on Dick Cheney's relationship to Haliburton or on the ammount of money made by members of the Bush family directly because of the war in the middle east?
steve1633
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:05 pm

Unread postby John Gilchrist Lodge » Tue May 08, 2007 9:47 pm

Thanks, 1633--you made our case for us (at least in the economic sense). If the libs followed liberalism to its logical conclusion, they'd be fiscally bankrupt!! In order to make a profit, they had to become FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE!!! :lol:
Go Cards!!!!
User avatar
John Gilchrist Lodge
Media observer
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:42 am
Location: MO

Unread postby Astute-Veteran » Wed May 23, 2007 3:05 pm

I don't know. Most of my friends are liberal and they fail to notice how most news media tends to lean towards the left.

However, they DO voice their opinion on how much they despise Fox News and how they're always bias towards everything.

They call me a "bigot" for watching Bill O'Reilly!

*sigh*

I agree with BG! It isn't fair how most media tends to lean on the leftside of things!

How can we fix this problem? How can we get a balanced media instead of a biased media?
Astute-Veteran
Media observer
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:31 am
Location: California

Unread postby Jim Rutledge » Fri May 25, 2007 11:36 pm

In the manner of a great former president and republican, "Well ....there you go again."

buddinganarchist cites an article that seems to dispute the Bernie Party Line.

Cortese questions the author's credentials, but doesn't address any of the issues raised in the article.

MrSinatra threatens to ban buddinganarchist for uncivility, rudeness and classlessness; but again chooses not to address any of the issues.

JmThms, JGL & Astute-Veteran contribute their normal non-sequitur responses.

So, will anyone actually discuss issues on this forum??, or will you continue to assign labels and issue threats??


Jim Rutledge
Jim Rutledge
Media pundit
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:28 pm

Unread postby Cortese » Sat May 26, 2007 6:20 am

Jim Rutledge wrote:So, will anyone actually discuss issues on this forum??, or will you continue to assign labels and issue threats??


No, I'd much rather assign labels Mr. Forums Standards. Who died and made you the authority on how to reply to post? :roll:
Life-long fan of the Military/Industrial/Janitorial/Custodial/Welfare-State/Pork-Laden/Mortgage & Bank Bailout Complex
User avatar
Cortese
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:08 am
Location: Michigan

Unread postby JmThms » Sun May 27, 2007 7:00 am

Jim Rutledge wrote:In the manner of a great former president and republican, "Well ....there you go again."

buddinganarchist cites an article that seems to dispute the Bernie Party Line.

Cortese questions the author's credentials, but doesn't address any of the issues raised in the article.

MrSinatra threatens to ban buddinganarchist for uncivility, rudeness and classlessness; but again chooses not to address any of the issues.

JmThms, JGL & Astute-Veteran contribute their normal non-sequitur responses.

So, will anyone actually discuss issues on this forum??, or will you continue to assign labels and issue threats??


Jim Rutledge



The reason people here won't go point-by-point of lib propaganda like this is because it is a waste of time. Our time is valuable and I, for one, can't afford to get bogged down in things that are as self-evidently non-factual as your piece is. I don't have time to eviscerate this piece point by point, but a few things:

"Goldberg's proof of liberal bias is shockingly sparse, relying on a few dubious surveys (while failing to mention FAIR's surveys showing that the media are more conservative than Americans on economic issues)."

My goodness, one just needs to read his books to see the manifestations of this bias.

"Of course there are left-wingers. But they're not allowed in the mainstream media. The media banish left-wingers while allowing right-wingers a voice (albeit sometimes with a label)."

Left-wingers not allowed in the msm???? :lol: Again, so self-evidently non-factual as to be hilarious. Perfect example of the fruitlessness of seriously addressing these things.

"In the 1990s, the Republican Party was taken over by its right wing, while the Democratic Party was taken over by its centrist right wing led by the Democratic Leadership Council."

Yea, those "centrist right-wingers" have such influence in the democratic party. :lol:
"A liberal is someone who is so broadminded they can't even take their own side in a fight"
- unknown

"[to Liberals] Loving America is too simple an emotion. To be nuanced you have to hate it a little."
- Ann Coulter
JmThms
Media observer
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:55 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Chicago critic flays Goldberg

Unread postby dr_norm_chomsky » Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:45 am

MrSinatra wrote: fine, do it civilly. but that post above is rude, as is the article it references. u are a GUEST here, don't be classless.


Given that Goldberg describes people as "wimps" and "crazies," why are you so thin-skinned?
dr_norm_chomsky
Media observer
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 11:20 am

Unread postby dr_norm_chomsky » Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:47 am

John Gilchrist Lodge wrote:Thanks, 1633--you made our case for us (at least in the economic sense). If the libs followed liberalism to its logical conclusion, they'd be fiscally bankrupt!! In order to make a profit, they had to become FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE!!! :lol:


How do you explain how Clinton ultimately ran a surplus, while Reagan and George W. Bush ran up huge deficits?
dr_norm_chomsky
Media observer
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 11:20 am

Re: Chicago critic flays Goldberg

Unread postby dr_norm_chomsky » Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:53 am

JmThms wrote:This hyperlinked piece is so divorced from reality one has to wonder whether it is an intentional spoof of liberals.


Bernard Goldberg wrote:"During the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings, NBC News actually brought MacKinnon in as an 'expert' to bring perspective to the hearings. MacKinnon is the feminist ideologue who had famously implied that all sexual intercourse is rape. This did not deter NBC News."


http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm

Quote: Feminist Catharine MacKinnon said "All sex is rape."

Status: False.
dr_norm_chomsky
Media observer
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 11:20 am

Unread postby John Gilchrist Lodge » Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:31 pm

dr_norm_chomsky wrote:
John Gilchrist Lodge wrote:Thanks, 1633--you made our case for us (at least in the economic sense). If the libs followed liberalism to its logical conclusion, they'd be fiscally bankrupt!! In order to make a profit, they had to become FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE!!! :lol:


How do you explain how Clinton ultimately ran a surplus, while Reagan and George W. Bush ran up huge deficits?


Because Clinton, in order to save his heinie from his other problems, thought it best to go along with the Republicans' Contract With America, perhaps?

Plus RR had to contend with a Democratically-controlled Congress. And Bush 41, at best, was a moderate, and like his son, practically never vetoed a bill during his tenure.
Go Cards!!!!
User avatar
John Gilchrist Lodge
Media observer
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:42 am
Location: MO

Unread postby buddinganarchist » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:03 pm

I could never understand how calling someone "unamerican" is not a personal attack. People see the shadow, not the tree that made said shadow.
buddinganarchist
Media observer
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:41 pm


Return to BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, & ARROGANCE: Rescuing America From the Media Elite

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron