From Insider to Outcast: With a sharp-edged new book, Bernard Goldberg challenges CBS's liberal bias

After 28 years as a reporter for CBS News, Bernard Goldberg found that sometimes the most significant news comes in the smallest moments. One of those moments came at 12:36 in the afternoon of April 14, 1999, as he sat by his speakerphone in Miami for a conference call discussing the 2000 presidential hopefuls. Sitting at a desk inside the Washington bureau, producer Roxanne Russell called candidate Gary Bauer "the little nut from the Christian group" and then kept reading nonchalantly from her list of events to cover.

The remark itself didn't shock Mr. Goldberg as much as the yawning silence of every other participant in the conference call: Nobody objected or even gasped. He wondered how they would have treated this producer if she had been this insulting toward a black, Jewish, or homosexual candidate. "Instant dismissal," he thought.

These moments and many others from CBS and rival television networks are chronicled in Mr. Goldberg's new book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. He told WORLD that the producer's remark might not have reflected hostility as much as it reflected a desire to please her colleagues. "They see themselves as hip and modern and sophisticated. Too many of them see religious people as the opposite. 'You believe in an invisible man in the sky who has these rules?' It just doesn't feel sophisticated."

(For his part, Gary Bauer says he's thankful that Mr. Goldberg found the remark objectionable. As for the producer, he joked, "I'll give her two out of three. I'm short in stature and clearly a Christian, if we can dispense with the nut part.")

Now a correspondent for the show Real Sports on HBO, Mr. Goldberg left CBS last year after the network canceled several of the TV magazine shows he served. Once he was free from CBS, he decided to write a book about bias, an idea he'd thought about for years. "I think this is an important subject to lot of people," he said. "It certainly is to me, and to millions of others. I thought this might be the only way that perhaps they would listen to an argument about the subject."

The book immediately sent shock waves across the Internet when its first excerpts surfaced, comparing CBS to a "news mafia" and using vulgar metaphors to describe how slavishly devoted corporate vice presidents were to Dan Rather. Mr. Goldberg says he thought the comparisons were funny, but he's beginning to regret the way these passages crackling with attitude are taking attention away from the substance of his critique.

While CBS has offered no official comment, some former colleagues also crackled with attitude. Reporter Eric Engberg said Mr. Goldberg committed an "act of treason" and that he had decided the best way to sell a book "is to trash your friends and former colleagues.... He didn't have many friends in this organization because he was a selfish, self-involved guy who was not a team player."

Mr. Goldberg insists he loves the Dan Rather who is a "wonderful, funny, charming guy," but his complaints about liberal bias exposed another side of the anchor, a man who sees any dissent as a personal attack. He quotes Jon Klein, who in 1996 when he was the No. 2 executive in the news division compared Mr. Rather to Richard Nixon: "If he sees you as an enemy for even a second, you're an enemy for life. And like Nixon, Rather must destroy his enemies.... Now Rather has become what he detested."

Mr. Goldberg contrasts Mr. Rather's lavish limousine-driven lifestyle and extravagant British-tailored suits with his on-air cornpone commentary, which he says the whole network knows isn't improvised, but created well in advance.

Perhaps the most devastating anecdote comes from the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, when CBS sent Mr. Rather's co-anchor at the time, Connie Chung, to Oklahoma before him while he was on vacation. Mr. Goldberg reproduced the claims of "several CBS news people" who heard Mr. Rather spending hours in the CBS station in Oklahoma City on the telephone with TV writers as an anonymous source blasting his female co-anchor as a "second-rate journalist." Mr. Goldberg expressed amazement that while 168 people had just died, Mr. Rather was carping about getting less airtime than his co-anchor.

Regnery, a conservative publisher that became a villain to many national reporters when it published books exposing the flaws of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, is publishing Mr. Goldberg's book. But the author says he isn't concerned about critics connecting ideological dots: "I had other offers, but I never got the impression they believed in this. I didn't want to spend time convincing an editor, 'Hey, I'm on to something here.'" He doesn't see himself as a conservative, just as a journalist who's an advocate for balance: "If the predominant bias were conservative, I'd be out there yelling about that."

But even if the substance of Mr. Goldberg's stories in the 1990s were "cold-bloodedly objective," as he maintained, his choice of topics became contrarian and pleasing to conservatives. He first caught conservative attention with a 1990 editorial in The New York Times attacking reporters on the "Victims America" beat, who always blamed social problems like homelessness on insufficient government intervention. On CBS, he took on the "epidemic" of excuses for criminal behavior and feminist "male bashing," and found a different breed of victims, like an apple juice maker imprisoned for seven incorrect environmental reports out of thousands, when even local environmentalists said the stream he "polluted" was clean.

He had agitated within the network for years about biased stories he saw from other CBS reporters. He asked producer (now CBS News President) Andrew Heyward in1993 about doing a story about whether the media had a bias. Mr. Heyward replied, "Look, Bernie, of course there's a liberal bias in the news. All the networks tilt left." Then he added, "If you repeat any of this, I'll deny it."

But his real career trouble began on Feb. 8, 1996. Just four months after he had achieved his highest profile at CBS, with a regular feature called "Bernard Goldberg's America" on the CBS Evening News, he would lose his patience with making internal complaints about liberal bias and shoot his own CBS career in the foot.

The man who rebuilt Mr. Goldberg's hurricane-damaged home in Miami, Jerry Kelley, asked him if he'd seen Eric Engberg's "Reality Check" report on presidential candidate Steve Forbes's flat-tax proposal. When he took Mr. Kelley's advice and viewed the story, he found the famously gruff Mr. Engberg dismissing the Forbes plan as a "scheme" and ridiculing its "wackiest" claim that tax cuts would allow families more time together. He wondered: Would a CBS reporter ever dare describe Hillary Clinton's health plan as a "wacky scheme"?

Mr. Goldberg responded with an unprecedented editorial in The Wall Street Journal attacking the Engberg report. In 21 words, he changed his career forever: "The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore."

To his colleagues at CBS, the topic had never been worth discussing. Dan Rather quickly removed the Goldberg feature from his show, and he was effectively banned from the airwaves for two months. A CBS statement said Dan Rather "disagrees with Mr. Goldberg's opinion ... and its expression." When Mr. Goldberg noted to his friend and boss Andrew Heyward that he hadn't revealed Mr. Heyward's casual 1993 admission of liberal bias, Mr. Heyward exclaimed, "That would have been like raping my wife and kidnapping my kids!"

That attitude resurfaced when he wrote another Wall Street Journal editorial last May attacking liberal bias. In a C-SPAN interview on the morning the article came out, NBC anchor Tom Brokaw complained that he knew Mr. Goldberg "had an ongoing feud with Dan. I wish he would confine it to that."

That's how network insiders want to portray Mr. Goldberg's story—as merely a personal spat, so that the argument about bias is buried underneath. "It's more acceptable today to argue that the Taliban are really good guys than to argue the media have a liberal bias," Mr. Goldberg said.

The root of the problem, he argues, is that network journalists have no interest in learning about the arguments of those they oppose. He recalls one conversation with Susan Zirinsky, now executive producer of CBS's 48 Hours, in which he asked her how often she had interviewed on camera a conservative women's group about a Supreme Court decision or vote in Congress. "She thought about it for a few seconds, then told me she couldn't think of a single time," he writes in his book.

Network reporters "aren't any more sophisticated than any of the hillbillies they can picture in the hills of Tennessee," he said. "Manhattan is one of the most provincial areas in the United States."

Mr. Goldberg concludes his book with his own personal solution: "All I can do is what millions of Americans have been doing for years. I take one last look at my good friend Dan, blow him a goodbye kiss, aim my remote right at his eyeball ... and click the button marked 'off.'"

What strikes me are the comments made by Goldberg's former colleagues. Instead of discussing, refuting or arguing the claims made by Goldberg they launch immediately into ad-hominem attacks - this is a specific bolshevik tactic (and you'll see it here on FR as well). Goldberg's former colleagues KNOW the media is overwhelmingly biased - this is the truth of the matter. They cannot refute the truth so they attack the bearer of the truth. I did a long time ago what Goldberg says he does now... just push the OFF button; I recognize bias and propaganda when I see, read or hear it and I reject it and its broadcasters.

I'm not sure that Mr. Goldberg actually gets the fact that the bias isn't liberal, but party. It came to fruition during the Clinton years, and at the same time became so hypocritical and so blatant. All the liberal causes such as women's rights, were not more important than that a democratic president was in office and must stay there. Thus the bizarre spectacle of women activisits of the Steinam stripe were giving Clinton "one free grope, one free assault, one free intern." Only of course it wasn't just one. But the press never chased it down. To them, the real villains were the House Managers.

Who can forget the press excesses over a visit to Bob Jones University, an ancient DWI, Rats, Major league a$$hole, the Bush twins, and on and on. All this while major and minor stories of the Clinton years went unchased, unexamined, made to go away by polls that said people weren't interested. (of course since the press didn't report these things, how could people know).

The Clinton years produced a politics of division and nastiness for which the mainstream media carried the water. Now, since 9/11 the public understands the dangers of this kind of nastiness and is not inclined to trust or listen to the mainstream media. They understand that the era of the perpetual campaign,(brought to you by the media and the Clintons) has some inherent dangers for the governance of the country. It is perhaps perceived more that ideated, but there is an instictive mistrust of the media now that was tolerated before because the stakes didn't seem so high.

The media-democratic party complex has lost much trust and credibility, and it is problematic whether they can regain it without major overhaul and long term commitment to truth in reporting. If they were wise instead of trashing Goldberg they would be well advised to listen to what he has to say. The watchers are being watched and they sure don't like it.

regards

It amazes me that something like this would create such as uproar. What is he telling us that we had not known for the last thirty years? I remember doing a paper in college on this subject back in 1971. The media bias was just as bad then, maybe worse (there was no Washington Times or Fox News then).

Perhaps one remedy would be to create better journalism departments in our conservative colleges and universities (such as Grove City and Hillsdale) and begin the long process of putting conservatives into the mainstream media from the groundfloor and gradually into all areas.

Currently #1 on Amazon.com.

An observation on bookstores: I wanted to find a copy of Barbara Olson's book, Final Days , so over a period of two weeks I stopped by every airport bookstore that I encountered. No luck, even though it was on the best seller list. Was it sold out? No, they weren't carrying it. "We have limited shelf space you see, we can't carry every book". However, they did manage to find room for Jeffery Toobin's book and several of the other left wing delusions of a Gore victory. These rags were never on a best seller list. Yesterday, at Waterstone's in Terminal A of Atlanta Hartfield, I finally saw the Olson book on the bestseller table (#10 on Amazon). Also on the same table was the Toobin book (#964 on Amazon). I guess a bestseller is in the eye of the beholder, or at least of the bookstore owner.

Amazon, FR, talk radio allow us to overcome the tyranny of the left in the media, the book chains, and elsewhere.

The root of the problem, he argues, is that network journalists have no interest in learning about the arguments of those they oppose.

This is the key, I think, not only to the bias of journalists, but also to the liberal mindset in general. I have found in my dealings with liberal family, friends and acquaintances, that they are, as a rule, underinformed or misinformed on political, public policy, and social issues, although they continue to hold strong (leftist)opinions on these matters.

When I attempt to challenge, debate, or in any way engage them to force them to defend or even argue their position, they are not only unable to do so, but they are disinterested, even hostile toward the idea that they might learn additional information contrary to their assumptions or preconceptions.

It's the old "Don't confuse me with facts, logic or history. I know I'm right" mindset.

A similar bookstore incident happened to me when the release of Barbara Olson's first book "Hell To Pay" about Hillary coincided with the release of the butt-kissing Gail Sheehy Hillary-fest, "Hillary's Choice".

My local Borders had stacks and stacks of the Sheehy book right inside the main entrance on the "New Release" table, as well as in several other locations in the store. I searched for ten minutes for the Olson book, to no avail. I had to ask a clerk, who looked it up in her computer, and then led me back to the back of the store to the "History" section, where one or two copies were up on the top shelf.

The clerk, a middle-aged woman, noted the sour, unflattering photo of the Hildebeast on the cover, and cracked to me, "I wonder if the author likes her?"

I don't think she appreciated my reply, as I carried my copy to the cash register.

"What's to like?"

Today's 'journalists' are so poorly educated they are ripe for the brainwashing that comes from their J school profs. Way back when Nixon was running in a primary in California, late 40s, the media was already trashing him and lying through their teeth about him. They succeeded in destroying Dan Quayle and go after any conservative who even looks like he or she might succeed in the political arena. Seeing it in writing just gets them hysterical.....fun to watch isn't it!!!

This book is sold out in Indiana's own liberal Mecca of Bloomington.

I wonder who's buying them all.

And here I, whose conception of Indiana has always come straight out of the movie Hoosiers, have persisted in thinking of Indiana as a conservative monolith.

Well, even if it isn't, it's heartwarming to read about massive outbreaks of good sense even in pockets of liberal squalor. Thanks for the good news.

And here I, whose conception of Indiana has always come straight out of the movie Hoosiers, have persisted in thinking of Indiana as a conservative monolith.

You're right. Bloomington, however, is our liberal bastion of political correctness. I believe the fact that the city hosts Indiana University is the main catalyst that incites liberalism there.

However, Bloomington's "Borders" and "Barnes and Noble", are both sold out and have the book backordered.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.