Posted on 12/24/2001 4:24:54 AM PST by lavaroise
Bernard Goldberg, the retired CBS News correspondent who infuriated Dan Rather, Don Hewitt and many others at CBS by showing how their liberal bias colors their reporting, has written a fascinating book that tells how he, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal from New York City, came to write a column that made him the unforgivable enemy of nearly everyone at CBS News.
His offense was telling the truth in a column in the Wall Street Journal that made the case that news reporting should be objective, fair and balanced.
He correctly notes in his book, "Bias," that what he said in that column would have been brushed off by his colleagues if it had been written by a well-known conservative like William F. Buckley Jr. But since it came from him, a trusted member of the liberal fraternity, his boss, Andrew Heyward, accused him of "an act of disloyalty" and "a betrayal of trust."
Goldberg says that a few years earlier Heyward had told him, "Of course there's a liberal bias in the news. All the networks tilt left," adding, "If you repeat any of this, I'll deny it." He says that when he reminded Heyward that he hadn't used that quote in his column, he screamed, "That would have been like raping my wife and kidnapping my kids."
Those words reflect the intensity of Heyward's feeling of betrayal by a colleague who shared his liberal views. Goldberg makes no bones about his own liberalism, saying he defends abortion and gay rights, for example, but he parts company with most liberals on some other social issues. He has a chapter on this that is intriguingly titled "The Most Important Story You Never Saw on TV."
That story, he says, is "the terrible things that are happening to America's children." He cites an article published by the conservative Heritage Foundation that put much of the blame for rising rates of child suicides, sexual activity, venereal disease and poor academic performance on the great increase in the number of working mothers.
This, he says, has resulted in an increase in the number of day-care and latchkey kids who don't get enough parental supervision. He overlooked the hundreds of polls and studies showing that the messages kids get from the entertainment industry, dominated by the same liberal mentality as the news media, bear a large share of the blame for the increased violence, sex, drug-use, crimes and suicides among American children.
He cited the lack of enthusiasm displayed by the television news coverage of a recent study that found that 17 percent of the children left in day care for over 30 hours a week "argue a lot, demand a lot of attention, act cruelly, show explosive behavior, talk too much and get into lots of fights." He pointed out that this was reported by the networks as a "controversial" study, indicating that it was one with which the reporter did not agree.
He attributes their enthusiasm for more federal funding for day care, and their lack of concern about its possible harmful effects, on the fact that so many of them are working couples who depend heavily on day care.
These stories are important, but it is not just bias that keeps them from leading the evening news. Like crumbling bridges, they are not breaking news. The most important breaking news story that has been suppressed in recent times is the murder of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr. in 1993, a story that even Goldberg probably doesn't know.
A leading Republican senator said seven years ago that the reason they were not investigating Foster's death is that if he did not kill himself, the president was somehow involved and the democratic process could not survive such a disclosure. The media seem to share that view, because no major news organization has ever investigated or reported the flaws in the official investigations.
The U.S. Park Police told another law enforcement agency they were saddled with the investigation because of its sensitive nature. When they saw the gun in Foster's hand they decided it was a suicide. This was later confirmed by Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr, independent counsels whose agents concealed all the evidence pointing to murder.
We have given Bob Woodward of the Washington Post irrefutable evidence that Foster was murdered. He promised to read it and respond. When he failed to respond, we told him that we would take his silence as an admission that he couldn't refute the evidence. He remained silent. That means the Washington Post can't refute the proof but it won't report it. That is suppression of important news.
Reed Irvine is chairman of Accuracy in Media.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Media Bias
The dependence on democracy to tyrannycal levels in this country is what is going to kill it more assuredly than terrorists. Look for the terrorists that use the pen and their office to spread terror. As a matter of fact the degrading effect of democracy is the foundation of the success of communism. We are dealing in effect with a proto-communist nation thanks to freedoms of speech and rights to vote any president we want in office. After all, since the end is evil, every which mean, especially the successful ones, are evil.
AGain, we are dealing with a combined effect of degradation of our youth with obsene freedoms and powers to institutionalise this degradation.
Chew on this liberals and libertarians.
Actually, I think that he really meant that the democratic party could not survive such a disclosure. The actual process would thrive like it hasn't since FDR.
What they meant to say:
"A leading Republican senator said seven years ago that Foster did not kill himself, the president was involved!"
This is the same mindset that dogs Linda Tripp to this day. She was and is castigated for "disloyalty" and betraying her erstwhile friend, the despicable Monica Lewinsky.
The media is riddled with amoral, unprincipled, conniving people like Heyward. They wield unlimited power. They must be exposed and we must be relentless in doing so.
Leni
Couple that with the dramatic increase in the number of fatherless families because of the welfare state, and you have identified the cause of the vast majority of the ills of this nation.
I would say this isn't the root cause, but I don't mean to steer this thread onto a religion discussion.
Fathers in poverty are encouraged to leave their families so they can get larger government welfare checks. After several generations of this, the behavior is now cultural. Boys need fathers, but without them, they join together in gangs. Girls needs fathers, but without them, they join themselves to any boy who shows an interest in them.
(Yes, I know this is an over-generalization, but nobody can deny these things happen on a large scale in this society.)
arkansas mafia bump
These obsene freedoms are artificially filling the voids left by institutions which were once (before the sixties) known as schools of learning, (i.e. public education). The public schools, with overt help from the media, openly promote these obsene freedoms as a distraction and diversion form real substance and real purpose in education.
Wouldn't you?
Please point out where communism is a "success." It never has been and never will be. Nor will our current state of socialism, which inevitably leads to communism. Perhaps you meant to say that the degrading effect of democracy is the foundation of the RISE of communism, which may very well be true if the people forego personal responsibilty and succumb to the pandering of politicians. When that happens, the people will have the government they deserve, just as they do in Europe and California.
It may surprise you that libertarians hate communism even more than the religious right folks who would trample on our freedoms. However, passing laws to enforce morality would be no more effective than passing laws against drugs.
The problem with our children is not working moms. The problem is cradle-to-grave government dependency. Children in government-subsidized daycare; children in public schools; young people in institutions of higher learning -- all indoctrinated from an early age to embrace the idea of a therepeutic, caring government -- working hand-in-hand with an enabling media -- absolving people of the need to take responsibility for their lives.
So while you work to pass laws, I will work to change the hearts and minds of people. I will attempt to reinvigorate people with a love for the constitution as a framework for limited government in the hope that one day they will use the power conferred in them by that precious document to take their government back. It's a longshot, I know. But not nearly as futile as passing laws to enforce my personal group's idea of morality.
Does anyone know who this leading Republican senator may be?
The probability is high that the disinterest in Foster's death, and the stampede to acquit the Impeached Bent One lies somewhere in those 900 (1100? 1500?) raw FBI files.
Oh my! Could we survive knowing that Osama's crew shot down TWA800? Would "democracy" be threatened by everyone knowing what happened to Ron Brown? The only thing that would not survive is some smelly politicians' hides, who would get strung up like Musolinni, and deservedly so. Democracy, or, more accurately, The Republic, would do just fine.
u used just about every way to say the word "r". Kudos.
GWB/Bill Clinton - no difference?
Dick Armey/Dick Gephardt - no difference?
John Ashcroft/Janet Reno - no difference?
Rudy Guliani/David Dinkins - no difference?
George Allen/Paul Wellstone - no difference?
My point is that INDIVIDUAL Democrats/Republicans have CLEAR differences. However, because of the Trent Lotts and Olympia Snowes of this world, we often-times don't see their efforts bear fruit. Sometimes all we can hope for (or be thankful for) is that the liberal tide has been slowed somewhat by the aforementioned conservatives.
I think it's a stretch to say no distinction at all can be drawn between Dems and Republicans.
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.