Recent Reading

Hey! It's a special themed edition of Recent Reading!

I'm only going to cover two of the books I read: Bias, by Bernard Goldberg; and What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman. The first book is dedicated to the argument that there is a liberal bias in mass media, and the second book is dedicated to the argument that the first book is full of beans. I expected that each book would be relatively convincing, so I'd come out of Bias thinking there was a liberal bias; and then What Liberal Media? would convince me there wasn't. Instead, both books irritated me a lot. Which I guess I could have predicted.

Incidentally, I came into this project as an agnostic on the whole deal. I don't watch much network news, so I don't really know if it's liberal or what. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that every news outlet probably features some amount of bias, either liberal or conservative; but I'd further guess that each outlet's amount and direction of bias is probably different. It just seems so unlikely that "all media" has the same bias. But let's see what I feel after reading the books.

Bias, by Bernard Goldberg

Goldberg seems to really hate Dan Rather. I mean really hate him. By page 5, he's already trying to defuse the claim that this is all because of a personal feud he has with Rather. But he doesn't do a very good job of that, because so much of the books is given over to personal attacks on Rather and his "custom-tailored British suits".

This book has backstory. Goldberg used to work for CBS News, and then he wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he said there was widespread liberal bias. And then he got ostracized. Most of the book is about the ostracization and how put-upon Goldberg feels. It's really much more about Goldberg than it is about the media. While reading it, I kept wishing Goldberg would shut up about himself. When he wasn't talking about himself, he was elaborating on this analogy he's thought of where CBS News is like the Mafia. See, because his column for the Wall Street Journal (which he mentions very, very often) broke the code of silence. So he calls Dan Rather "The Dan". Like "The Don", you see.

That "The Dan" stuff got really old for me. Right away. I have nothing but contempt for people who try to score rhetorical points by making up insulting nicknames for their enemies and using them at every opportunity. Got a problem with Bush? Fine. Try to get that across by calling him "Shrub"? Shut up. And if you always refer to your nemesis with an allegedly-clever insulting nickname like "The Dan"? Just knock it off. Besides, all he's really establishing is that Dan Rather can be a megalomaniacal jerk. That's not all that shocking, is it? He's a big star. Of course he's a jerk.

When Goldberg breaks down and actually discusses the Media, a lot of his allegations don't really address liberal bias. He accuses the networks of never coming up with their own ideas; apparently they take all their story cues from the New York Times. That's an interesting claim, and I wanted to see some data on that. And if it's true, then it seems like it doesn't even matter if everyone at the networks is liberal; he should have just focused on the Times. But the liberalism of the New York Times is one of those things that he just takes for granted.

Another thing Goldberg takes for granted is, um, the liberal bias in the media. Fairly early on, he just declares it blatantly obvious to anyone who turns on the television. He occasionally mentions testimonials he received after writing the op-ed piece (the piece, incidentally, is included as Appendix A, because it was apparently the highlight of Bernard Goldberg's life). Some testimonials are from famous media figures who totally agree with him, which is a little worrying, since they're not liberals. And some testimonials are from random people, as though to say "A guy in Fort Worth agrees with me! That proves I'm right!"

There are a lot of code words in Bias. He refers to the "Ayatollahs of political correctness" and the "Sensitivity Patrol in New York". He also talks reasonably frequently about the "liberal media elites" and the "liberal establishment." I would have been a lot more convinced by his thesis if he had left out the buzzwords -- I don't really care that Dan Rather lives on Park Avenue. I was also annoyed when he introduced the word "putz". I don't have anything against the word itself, but he made a big deal about how "for some reason this word is used a lot in Manhattan but almost never in Jackson Hole, Wyoming." I'll have more to say about that in my comments on the next book.

What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman

What Liberal Media? was written as a response to Bias and Slander (the book by Ann Coulter which I didn't read, since I wanted to read an equal number of books on each side of the argument, plus Coulter sounds like she's out of her mind). I figured it would address some of the queestions I had after reading Bias, like "if the media is so biased, how come the Wall Street Journal published your op-ed?" Alterman does answer that, sort of, be asserting that, in fact, almost all news media are biased toward the conservative viewpoint.

He demonstrates this by listing a bunch of conservative pundits. He uses the word "pundit" a lot. Also "punditocracy," which is a word he appears to have invented in a previous book. His argument is that because there are a lot of conservative commentators, that proves that the presentation of the news is not slanted. I don't see the connection, personally; Goldberg never said that the editorials were biased. Anyway, editorials are supposed to be biased, that's why they're editorials.

One thing Alterman uses a lot is "sarcasm" quotes. If he doesn't have time to demonstrate why a claim is wrong, he just puts it in quotes, and then it looks "wrong". An early example of this is when he refers to the "so-called 'liberal media'". That's wrong, incidentally; when you're using quotes like that, the Chicago Manual of Style says not to use them after the word "so-called". When you're being so heavy-handed that manuals of style saw you coming, that's a warning sign. And after having established that phrase, Alterman proceeds to abbreviate it "SCLM" and beat it to death, using it about every other page until your eyes glaze over.

Alterman's methods are not what I was hoping for. His comments on Ann Coulter are straight-up ad hominem. Apparently, if a woman wears revealing dresses, she can be safely dismissed without further comment. He spends a great deal of the beginning of the book talking about himself and his reasons for writing it. Why do these guys think I care about them as people? I mean, I get that if they turn into recognizable names, they get to be on talk shows, but can't that crap go at the end of the book? Because if the first thing I read is self-involved nattering (which is the case in both of these books), I don't care.

Alterman also uses a few code words, referring to the "well-educated urban elites". I wish both sides would stop the hinting and tiptoeing. If one side would just out and say "You're a bunch of New York Jews who don't understand the common man!" and the other side would say "the common man is a bunch of stupid farmers who don't know what's good for them" everything would go a lot faster. Because otherwise, I need to study these quotes and translate them into English. I still don't entirely get "Ayatollahs of political correctness," though.

Alterman's basic claim is that there are more conservatives in the media than liberals. He does this partly by claiming that tv commentators come in two flavors: mildly liberal and violently conservative. When he's identifying conservatives (which he does by the handful), it seems like everyone's not just conservative, but "hard-line" or "hawkish" or some other emphasizing adjective. He also points out that all the major networks are owned by massive corporations; and if ABC News ends up not reporting on Disney, that's -- well, it's not clear what his point is. It's a bias, obviously, but it's not really conservative is it? Goldberg does the same thing; he devotes a chapter to the argument that AIDS reporting was mostly panicky hype, overemphasizing the danger to people not in high-risk groups. That's probably true, but even he admits that it was because networks like to engender panic so they can get ratings. That's not particularly liberal, or even ideological. I think what's going on here, on both sides, is that by pointing at the media and shouting "Bad!" they think they've said "Liberal!" or "Conservative!" Depending on which side they stand, you see.

Also, you have to be careful with the "networks are part of media conglomerates, which are essentially conservative" argument. For one thing, when you're listing all the elements of the conglomerate to impress your reader with how big and interconnected it all is, the careful reader might notice that not all elements are the same size. Like, in the big list of AOL/Time Warner properties, Alterman includes World Championship Wrestling (which went away quite some time ago) and something called the Sega channel. Big deal, I say. And besides, if you go too far up the CNN tree, you run into Ted Turner, who is about as rabid a liberal as you can get. I know he's not there anymore, but you get my point.

So. In conclusion, I would have to say that both of these guys need to shut the hell up. Neither of them are interested in accuracy or letting civilians get an idea of the horrifying way the news is put together; they're much more interested in make wild, obviously-false claims. Goldberg likes to say that all media has a liberal bias, although he's willing to admit that, for example, Fox News has a conservative attitude and sensibility. And maybe the Wall Street Journal might be okay. And perhaps a few others. Alterman likes to claim that there aren't any liberal talk show hosts anywhere, which seems to imply that he's never heard of NPR.

See, this is why I usually read fiction.