November 30, 2003

The biases of Bias...and other media adventures

After reading Bernard Goldberg's representation of the "facts" in Bias, I cannot erase my first impression of his tone: blogger. His narrative style and content correlates with many of the blogs I have encountered in my careless searches (ones that I have stopped visiting and trusting). I have found that Goldberg, like some bloggers, is a biased and whiny individual that cannot relate the true "facts" of the matter.

Some of Goldberg's statements I support, though such as,

So while I'm for what we like to call affirmative action when that means reaching out to bring more minorities into the process, I'm against affirmative action when it means racial preferences, which in the real world is what affirmative action is usually about.

I have been trying to articulate this opinion for two papers I am writing on affirmative action, but I couldn't. I am happy to find an opinion that is synonymous with mine. My question now is: Will I have to cite it? Probably :-(

Anyway, I am biased already because I read the Eric Alterman essay first, undermining Goldberg's claims. (Dr. Jerz...did you specify which one to read first? I am sorry if I read them in the "wrong" order.)

In any case, I am happy that I read them in that order, I can see Alterman's opinion about Goldberg: "Much of Bias consists of blasts at unnamed liberals who are accused of exaggerating data and manipulating the truth for their own purposes."

Goldberg's style, though catchy and easier to read than Alterman's, does not offer significant proof for anything. Alterman's statement that the book is "shoddily written" does carry merit. I found a live chat record in which Goldberg defends his book, but I found him still very biased without significant proof for his claims.

As for the proposed bias that exists in the media, I cannot find support of it in my searches. In a current article by The Washington Times, a reporter quotes Tim Graham, a journalism expert for the conservative Media Research Center.

Leaks which make liberals look bad aren't as interesting or newsworthy to liberal reporters as leaks that make the Bush administration look bad.

Though the inclusion of this quote backs Goldberg's stance, including this opinion refutes it, making the speaker look incredibly stupid.

And then there are others that look just plain whiny.

I don't know...maybe Goldberg does have a good point...so why...why on earth would you put revolutionary claims in your book without suffucient back-up information???

He loses credibility right there.

Posted by Amanda Cochran at November 30, 2003 5:05 PM
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?