New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | August 16, 2005

Cathy Young surveys Bernard Goldberg's bias.

Comments

|8.16.05 @ 10:26AM|#

If you have the QuickTime player, you can watch Jon Stewart tell him face-to-face.

|8.16.05 @ 10:30AM|#

Let's not assume that Goldberg's intent is to produce an unbiased indictment of people ruining America. Rather, let's assume that his intent is to make money selling his books. (And I'm all in favour of people making money selling ideas with which I don't necessarily agree.)

He could have written a very even-handed critique, but who would want to publish it? The target audience for such a work would likely be small in comparison to the well-tested market for polarized rants.

Fact is, the market rewards biased opinions (check the best-sellers list to alleviate any doubts), and unless you think you know better than the market, you'd have to view Barry's bias as a very reasonable sales strategy.

|8.16.05 @ 10:37AM|#

Oh goody, I can nitpick something! Cathy- Robert Byrd is D- WEST "By God" Virginia.

ed|8.16.05 @ 11:32AM|#

Like any List of the Year of the Week, Goldberg's is superfluous and not to be taken seriously except by those imbeciles who are offended by the inevitable omissions and the oh-so-controversial intrigues as to why X is rated higher or lower than Y and why Z was left out altogether.

|8.16.05 @ 11:48AM|#

Being someone that Mr. Goldberg apparently respects, at least in so much as some of their views coincide, it falls on Ms. Young to call him on his nonsense not the polar opposites he unsportingly goes after. Good for you Cathy. It probably won't make a bit of difference, but it is well worth doing.

|8.16.05 @ 12:53PM|#

Like any List of the Year of the Week, Goldberg's is superfluous and not to be taken seriously except by those imbeciles who are offended by the inevitable omissions and the oh-so-controversial intrigues as to why X is rated higher or lower than Y and why Z was left out altogether.

Unfair Ed. I don't think Cathy displays even a hint of "offense" at who is on or off Goldberg's list.

She simply points out some obvious problems with regard to...

1. How fair and unbiased it might be. Since the author's previous claim to fame was a book called (ironically) Bias, I think he's fair game here.

2. How logical some of his picks are in relation to others clearly equally (if not more) deserving of membership on the list.

As for whether or not it should be taken seriously, I should point out that Golberg appears to take it very seriously...as do many right wing ding dongs who are not only unoffended by any ommissions but wholly enthusiastic about Golderg's list. If you're in doubt, read the comments on Amazon.com

Truth is, anyone these days can go straight to the top of the bestseller lists by simply coming up with a new and creative way to bash the left.

Especially if they futher obscure and ignore the fact that the righties aren't doing much better.

HERE'S MY RECIPE FOR SUCCESS...
1. Keep the list focused on the usual suspects.

2. Add a few token righties everyone hates so it seem balanced.

3. Use short essays.

4. Make no word longer than "patriotism" or "treasonous".

5. And whatever you do, don't let the reader actually think about the topic at hand.

|8.16.05 @ 1:47PM|#

I doubt Bernard Goldberg's book was meant to be, or even should be, fair and balanced. Here's a guy who has been directly involved with the left-leaning, holier-than-thou media. His purpose is to expose their hypocrisy. The left is already doing an adequate job exposing "George Bush and his evil Nazi cohorts."

|8.16.05 @ 2:09PM|#

ed,

There's nothing wrong with arguing with why X is higher than Y in stupid list books. Charles Murray's "Human Achievement" has produced pretty much the best drinking game I've ever been a part of, and a big part of that game was yelling "Goethe sucks, how could he beat out Shakespeare; No, Shakespeare sucks, how could he be above Dickens; Why isn't Lovecraft on this list?" at each other, then engaging in drunk deconstruction. Very fun.

|8.16.05 @ 5:43PM|#

passingthru-Maybe, but it would be nice if someone would actually go after both equally. Of course, neither side wants to hear about it's flaws, so it'd never sell...

|8.16.05 @ 6:54PM|#

Of course, neither side wants to hear about it's flaws, so it'd never sell...

Yes, I think Russ R made that point well. Conservatives like to read books bashing liberals and liberals like to read books bashing conservatives. If a libertarian wrote a book bashing both, even if all 37 of us bought it, you could never cover the costs of publication. Better to just email it to us.

|8.16.05 @ 10:36PM|#

even if all 37 of us bought it, you could never cover the costs of publication.

Don't be so negative, Brian. You might be surprised how many people don't particularly like either of the 2 major political parties AND how many of that subset actually digs libertarian ideals.

You know what I predict?

I predict it's only a matter of time before the "fisicons" get fed up with the "sociacons" hypocritical b.s. and start getting behind a more libertarian mode of thinking.

|8.16.05 @ 10:37PM|#

Haven't read the book, but I got the impression that it's more of a cross-section of people that are screwing up America, not a strict '100 worst' list. If that's the case, then it's kind of pointless to complain that he chose Scumbag A rather than the slightly more odious Scumbag B.

|8.16.05 @ 11:06PM|#

One man's opinion shouldn't have to be fair and balanced. It's his opinion, no one else's. Should Reason columnists be fair and balanced in their articles? When you post your blog, do you write your opinion, or do you include those of others?

|8.16.05 @ 11:08PM|#

The whole idea of the book is: Everyone who disagrees with me is bad for America.
How f*cking childish. Just say you disagree without declaring everyone else a plague on the nation.

|8.16.05 @ 11:09PM|#

BTW: I don't support any political party.

Mark Bahner|8.16.05 @ 11:34PM|#

Cathy Young writes, "...and has joined forces with the loony left to propagate the dangerous canard that vaccines cause autism?"

I'm curious, Ms. Young...where did you get your medical degree? ;-)

http://www.techcentralstation.com/123004E.html

|8.17.05 @ 2:44AM|#

I'm taking that somewhat OT remark and running with it. Forgive me.

Mark,

What's your opinion as to why autism has increased in Europe since they stopped using mercury as a preservative in vaccines?