Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News


by
Bernard Goldberg

Mr Goldberg was an insider, part of CBS, one of theirs and a friend of Dan Rather. That is as inside as it gets in the media in New York. Then one day it all fell apart. Dan stopped speaking to him and he was unemployable. It was that simple and definite. He sinned and one day later he was finished.

How did he go wrong? He wrote an article about "liberal bias". Liberal in American politics means left wing. In reality it is rather more extreme. Anyone who is not to the left of Lenin is regarded as a right wing nut. This definitely includes me or it would if I were not beneath their notice.

His answer is to write books like this one telling us about the enclosed world that is the New York media. They are aware of people in Los Angeles and Washington; read that as Hollywood and politics but the rest of America is just a desert, literal and intellectual, that they fly over en route to LA or Washington. The only little people that they meet are probably their servants and they are likely to be illegal immigrants.

QUOTE
The other level is more important: he gives specifics examples (names, quotes, specific stories) of deeply ingrained media bias. Some key ones:
--A CBS reporter in a conference call labelling former presidential candidate Gary Bauer "that little nut from the Christian Group." And no editors listening objected.
--How a CBS producer didn't want images of black prisoners on a chain gang story since it might make viewers think many prisoners were black (which they were)...and similar problems on showing black looters in the Virgin Islands.
--How news producers generally don't like to feature blacks in news stories since it means lower ratings.
--How homeless activists bloated statistics and downplayed the role of the mentally ill, alcoholic and drug-users among that population. How the homeless story is heavily reported when Republicans are in power, then suddenly dropped once a Democrat takes office. He makes a persuasive case.
--How the news media went along with early contentions by AIDS activists that the horrorific [ sic ] disease put the entire heterosexual population at risk versus specific segments (homosexuals, drug users and those that have sex with them).
--How the word "controversial" often means the reporter/show does not agree with the person or issue to which it refers.
--How conservatives are labelled as such but liberals aren't.
UNQUOTE

But do not take my word for it. Try for yourselves.

 

Here are some things to watch for:

Words as Propaganda Tools
Media bias is alive and kicking. The main tool is suppression of the truth. The next is the diversion; waffle about a footballer or actress. Then there are the emotional words. Watch how they sneak under the radar and feed us their real  message and the truth comes down the line.

 

Haaretz
Is the publicly respectable face of Israel. It is widely read and on the Internet. It tells us things that Jewish politicians would prefer us not to know but there are significant differences between the English version and the Hebrew version which is for home consumption only.
PS Haaretz was as good as it got in Israel. Then the propaganda industry attacked it, leaned on it, neutered it. It still does the odd story worth the bother.

 

How To Frame A Patriot
Barry Krusch writes about HOW it is done. He is interested in the mechanics of media manipulation rather than being a sympathiser. It is in .pdf format unfortunately but well worth a read.

 

The Independent Television Commission
Is in the business of distorting the news, its statutory obligation notwithstanding.

 

Selective Distortion and You [ 28 November 2006 ]
The media tell the truth don't they? Yes, more or less, some of the time. Lying by telling the truth is the cleverest form of misleading people. That is what the BBC is so good at. Curt Maynard tells us what a magazine called Newsweek is doing to pervert the truth in America. Leading the Way claims that twenty women are powerful. Their choices are revealing. So is the ownership of the magazine.
PS When somebody quotes sources his work becomes more checkable.
PPS The source got 11 hits. The main stream media are not pushing this one.

 

'We Don't Own the News Any More' [ 6 October 2005 ]
'We' don't control it totally either and even if 'we' did 'we' are not trusted any more. We [ real people as distinct from 'we' the media ]  have got our own news channels now. We can broadcast over the Internet. 'We' don't like it. 'We' have not got total control any more. Notice that the BBC acts as an arm of the police state, carrying out espionage operations against political dissidents [ of the right  but never the  left  ] and having them prosecuted - maliciously of course.

Any one who tells us that the Internet should be controlled should be regarded with grave suspicion. They will have the standard excuses; child pornography, identity theft and so on. The media is still immensely powerful. It is not as crude as the propaganda machine in the USSR. Subtlety makes it far  more effective.

 

BBC 'wanted to sack Humphrys' [ 6 October 2005 ]
Green and Thompson wanted to sack John Humphrys after he told the truth and was betrayed by a Labour spy. Sacking would have proved that they were toeing the government line. They bottled out when it when public.

 

Media Contacts
If you feel disposed to tell the media what you think about the drivel that they produce you can contact some of them through this link.

Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.

Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP key.  Home

Updated  on  Sunday, 23 August 2015 20:48:21