N.Y. Times reviews Alterman book ('What Liberal Media?' barf alert)

The New York Times ^ | 3/16/03 | Ted Widmer

[FastNBulbous]

The Wayward Media By TED WIDMER

"...Alterman is ready for a bar fight, and he comes out swinging. His first targets are Goldberg and Ann Coulter, the acidulous commentator whose mini-skirts and mini-thoughts have ensured her a wide following on the paleolithic end of the political spectrum....Throughout the book, the idea of a liberal reporter seems a faint anachronism -- like the typewriter or Jimmy Olsen's bow tie -- when contrasted to the disciplined nexus of private foundations, talk shows and dirt-seeking oppo men that the right uses to get out its message. Alterman vividly presents this nether world as something out of Dante's 'Inferno' -- the trust-funders with deep pockets, like Richard Mellon Scaife; the Internet bottom-feeders who traffic in rumors and half-truths (Matt Drudge); the braying hosts and guests on shows like 'The O'Reilly Factor' and 'The McLaughlin Group,' who never shut their mouths to listen to one another (where's the duct tape when you actually need it?)....Chris Matthews is quoted gushing that George Bush proved his leadership quality and fulfilled Hemingway's 'very definition of courage' (grace under pressure) by throwing a strike at Yankee Stadium to open Game 3 of the 2001 World Series. On that basis, I would like to nominate Pedro Martinez as secretary general of NATO and Roger Clemens as secretary of agriculture....'What Liberal Media?' is bold, counterintuitive and cathartic."

[FastNBulbous]

I thought someone should point out that the Times doesn't seem to realize that it undermines its own case by NOT reviewing previous books about bias in the media, like Coulter's Slander and Goldberg's Bias despite the fact that they've all been national best sellers, and then lavishing praise on Alterman's, which will probably only achieve fractional sales compared to all the others.

[dighton]

Also see comments on previous post.

[Reactionary]

What? You mean that the Times only reviews books that it happens to agree with, and then they have the audacity to claim that they're fair and balanced and that the very idea of "liberal media" is a myth?

What liberal media? What idiot media!

[Uncle Hal]

They did not review Michael Savage's book even though it was No. 1 on their bestseller list. Also I do not think they reviewed any of Rush's books and they were both No. 1.

[youngjim]

Main Entry: al·ter [man}
Pronunciation: 'ol-t&r
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): al·tered; al·ter·ing /-t(&-)ri[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French alterer, from Medieval Latin alterare, from Latin alter other (of two); akin to Latin alius other -- more at ELSE
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to make different without changing into something else
2 : CASTRATE, SPAY
intransitive senses : to become different
synonym see CHANGE
3 : neutered lefty

[Captainpaintball]

The fact that they didn't review Bias or Slander, yet only mentioned them when they were forced to, (reviewing Alterman's book) is proof of...well, bias!

[expatpat]

Throughout the book, the idea of a liberal reporter seems a faint anachronism.....

Da*n right, the term should be 'socialist reporter'.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

They did not review Michael Savage's book even though it was No. 1 on their bestseller list. Also I do not think they reviewed any of Rush's books and they were both No. 1.

They didn't review them because they really believe those books are examples of extremist thought, like a book by skinheads. Bernard Goldberg makes this argument in "Bias". He says that he doesn't believe the media is willfully biased, but rather they just assume that their way of thinking is normal, and moderate, while everything to the right of them is extremist. He says that this is actually worse than them being willfully biased, because that would be fixable. It's much harder to fix when the media actually believes they are fair and balanced.

[backhoe]

Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media

CyberAlert -- 05/07/1996 -- NQ CyberAlert
... recent Freedom Forum survey of Washington reporters and bureau chiefs revealed 89
percent voted for Clinton versus 7 percent for Bush in 1992. Do you think the ...

Great Debate#9
... opinions skew their professional writing. Nuzzo pointed out that a 1995 Freedom
Forum survey showed 89 percent of the media voted for Bill Clinton while the ...

Break up Microsoft?...Then how about the media "Big Six"? [ ...
... Why? They're usually wrong. 92% voted for Clinton. Libertarians, by contrast,
much enjoy being Right. You may (continue to?) derive your understanding of ...

-Poll confirms Ivy League liberal tilt--

[Pilly]

For what it's worth, Atterman deals with a lot of this in his book: he has points that are worth discussing...