Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
By Bernard Goldberg and Ed Morrissey
3.5/5
()
About this ebook
For years Goldberg appealed to reporters, producers, and network executives for more balanced reporting, but no one listened. The liberal bias continued.
In this classic number one New York Times bestseller, Goldberg blew the whistle on the news business, showing exactly how the media slant their coverage while insisting they’re just reporting the facts.
Bernard Goldberg
Bernard Goldberg is the number one New York Times bestselling author of Bias, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, and Arrogance. He has won eight Emmy Awards for his work at CBS News and at HBO, where he now reports for the acclaimed program Real Sports. In 2006 he won the Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award, the most prestigious of all broadcast journalism awards.
Read more from Bernard Goldberg
100 People Who Are Screwing Up America: (and Al Franken Is #37) Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5
Related to Bias
Related ebooks
Hate, Inc.: Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Trump vs. the Media Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Media Nation: The Political History of News in Modern America Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAdios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Propaganda Blitz: How the Corporate Media Distort Reality Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Lapdogs: How the Press Lay Down for the Bush White House Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWill the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of Journalism and What Can Be Done to Fix It Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Ghosting the News: Local Journalism and the Crisis of American Democracy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Steadfast Democrats: How Social Forces Shape Black Political Behavior Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Conscience of a Conservative Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5United States of Distraction: Media Manipulation in Post-Truth America (And What We Can Do About It) Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Dangerous Charisma Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Three Languages of Politics: Talking Across The Political Divides Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Death of the Public Servant Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDare Not Linger: The Presidential Years Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5We the People: Restoring Civility, Sanity, and Unifying Solutions to U.S. Politics Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Case Against the New Censorship: Protecting Free Speech from Big Tech, Progressives, and Universities Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Take It Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Them: Why We Hate Each Other--and How to Heal Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWalking Through the Fire: My Fight for the Heart and Soul of America Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Speech: The Story Behind Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Dream Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Political Internet Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Politics For You
Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: The Cyberweapons Arms Race Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Republic by Plato Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A People's History of the United States Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Capitalism and Freedom Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them) Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on the U.S.-Israeli War on the Palestinians Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Fear: Trump in the White House Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Art of War & Other Classics of Eastern Philosophy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The U.S. Constitution with The Declaration of Independence and The Articles of Confederation Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5On Palestine Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Killing the SS: The Hunt for the Worst War Criminals in History Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Great Awakening: Defeating the Globalists and Launching the Next Great Renaissance Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Daily Stoic: A Daily Journal On Meditation, Stoicism, Wisdom and Philosophy to Improve Your Life Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Ever Wonder Why?: And Other Controversial Essays Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Gulag Archipelago [Volume 1]: An Experiment in Literary Investigation Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race: The Sunday Times Bestseller Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Great Reset: And the War for the World Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Disloyal: A Memoir: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Humanity Archive: Recovering the Soul of Black History from a Whitewashed American Myth Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5
Related categories
Reviews for Bias
168 ratings8 reviews
- Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5More than anything else, Goldberg fights back full-throttle at "The Dan." His case that the media has a liberal bias is clear, and he tempers it appropriately with discussion of the underlying dynamics and the (perhaps even scarier fact) that such bias is mostly unconscious.
1 person found this helpful
- Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5To have militant politics, militant judges and militant NGOs is bad enough, but to have militant journalists is simply ridiculous. Goldberg thus shows that liberals not only think wrong, they also do wrong, and worse, they do wrong where they shouldn't "do" anything at all. No wonder most americans distrust Big Media...
1 person found this helpful
- Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Bernard Goldberg spent twenty-eight years as a reporter for CBS. His book shows how the media unintentionally impose a liberal bias when reporting the news. He is quick to point out that for non-social issues like plane crashes or September 11 the media does a superb job. The bias comes out in their coverage of social issues. Several reasons support this feeling.- A large majority of the press are Democrats compared with around 20% of the general population.- When getting opinions on various news stories, they consult known liberal groups, but no conservative groups.- They socialize and work with like-minded people, therefore, they view their stances as normal.Their bias comes out in a distortion of facts, how people are portrayed in the news, and words used to describe ideas that do not match their own. Politicians are labelled "conservative" or "right-wing", but none are labelled "liberal" or "left-wing". Various conservative/Republican platform planks are schemes or something that has a negative connotation.It was interesting how the media (60 Minutes in particular), who have no problem exposing corruption and questionable behavior, reacted with disdain, denial, and vindictiveness when Goldberg turns the tables. It was obvious to me that those who dish it out, can't take it.The topics that he feels are subjected to this bias are the homeless, AIDS, men, terrorism, and race. This was very interesting because he would make a point and counter it with a "what if" scenario. For instance, Katie Couric jokingly asks if a jilted bride considered castration as a suitable remedy for the groom. Goldberg counters that with "what if" Matt Lauer were interviewing a groom in a similar situation. What if Lauer had mentioned cutting off the bride's breasts as a remedy? All Hell would break loose. Women's groups would be calling for his abusive-violence-against-women's head.I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who rolls their eyes at the very thought of a media bias. It was eye-opening, and I'll never watch network news the same way again. Come to think of it, I never watch network news anyway. Oh well, no great loss.By the way, Bernard Goldberg has never voted for a Republican, and voted for Bill Clinton twice.
1 person found this helpful
- Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Interesting reading. I read it after Dan Rather had been dismissed from CBS news for poor journalism. The book was apparently written before then. It was very interesting that Bernard Goldberg came close to losing his pension because of criticizing CBS for having a liberal bias in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages. This brought him the wrath of Dan Rather. Goldberg may have had the last laugh as Dan Rather was eventually fired for using a forged document against President George W. Bush on the CBS news. The main point: our hard news should be fair, balanced, and unbiased.
1 person found this helpful
- Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Bernard Goldberg is a liberal and an Emmy Award-winning broadcast journalist that worked for CBS for decades. This book is his expose of his fellow reporters' liberal bias that led to his own ostracism and rejection. Mr. Goldberg offers examples of how media interpretations of current events affect social climate of the country. This book is as timely as the Op-ed pieces Mr. Goldberg wrote when he was still on the CBS payroll. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but not when reporting the news. Our news is supposed to be objective. If they wish to give their own opinions, they should be commentators. I agree with the other reviews that state that this book is a solid indictment of the mainstream media's bias. We should demand that all news media returns to reporting facts and focus on being fair, balanced and objective.
1 person found this helpful
- Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5For me, this was the first book to really lay out the bias in the news media. I consider it the godfather of the raft of such books that came out in the years immediately following it. It opened the floodgates and led the way to a conservative activism that in turn led to the tea parties.
1 person found this helpful
- Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Nothing Rush hasn't pointed out already, but now it's an ''insider'' saying it, so people are listening.
1 person found this helpful
- Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A short account of Goldberg being blackballed from the MSM because he grew more conservative.
1 person found this helpful
Book preview
Bias - Bernard Goldberg
Introduction
They Think You’re a Traitor
Ihave it on good authority that my liberal friends in the news media, who account for about 98 percent of all my friends in the news media, are planning a big party to congratulate me for writing this book. As I understand it, media stars like Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings will make speeches thanking me for actually saying what they either can’t or won’t. They’ll thank me for saying that they really do slant the news in a leftward direction. They’ll thank me for pointing out that, when criticized, they reflexively deny their bias while at the same time saying their critics are the ones who are really biased. They’ll thank me for observing that in their opinion liberalism on a whole range of issues from abortion and affirmative action to the death penalty and gay rights is not really liberal at all, but merely reasonable and civilized. Finally, they’ll thank me for agreeing with Roger Ailes of Fox News that the media divide Americans into two groups—moderates and right-wing nuts.
My sources also tell me that Rather, Brokaw, or Jennings—no one is sure which one yet—will publicly applaud me for alerting the networks that one reason they’re all losing viewers by the truckload is that fewer and fewer Americans trust them anymore. He’ll applaud, too, when I say that the media need to be more introspective, keep an open mind when critics point to specific examples of liberal bias, and systematically work to end slanted reporting.
According to the information I’ve been able to gather, this wonderful event will take place at a fancy New York City hotel, at eight o’clock in the evening, on a Thursday, exactly three days after Hell freezes over.
Okay, maybe that’s too harsh. Maybe, in a cheap attempt to be funny, I’m maligning and stereotyping the media elites as a bunch of powerful, arrogant, thin-skinned celebrity journalists who can dish it out, which they routinely do on their newscasts, but can’t take it. Except I don’t think so, for reasons I will come to shortly.
First let me say that this was a very difficult book to write. Not because I had trouble uncovering the evidence that there is in fact a tendency to slant the news in a liberal way. That part was easy. Just turn on your TV set and it’s there. Not every night and not in every story, but it’s there too often in too many stories, mostly about the big social and cultural issues of our time.
What made doing this book so hard was that I was writing about people I have known for many years, people who are, or once were, my friends. It’s not easy telling you that Dan Rather, whom I have worked with and genuinely liked for most of my adult life, really is two very different people; and while one Dan is funny and generous, the other is ruthless and unforgiving. I would have preferred to write about strangers. It would have been a lot easier.
Nor is it easy to write about other friends at CBS News, including an important executive who told me that of course the networks tilt left—but also warned that if I ever shared that view with the outside world he would deny the conversation ever took place.
I think this is what they call a delicious irony. A news executive who can tell the truth about liberal bias in network news—but only if he thinks he can deny ever saying it! And these are the people who keep insisting that all they want to do is share the truth with the American people!
It wasn’t easy naming names, but I have. I kept thinking of how my colleagues treat cigarette, tire, oil, and other company executives in the media glare. The news business deserves the same hard look because it is even more important.
Fortunately, I was on the inside as a news correspondent for twenty-eight years, from 1972, when I joined CBS News as a twenty-six-year-old, until I left in the summer of 2000. So I know the business, and I know what they don’t want the public to see.
Many of the people I spoke to, as sources, would not let me use their names, which is understandable. They simply have too much to lose. You can talk freely about many things when you work for the big network news operations, but liberal bias is not one of them. Take it from me, the liberals in the newsroom tend to frown on such things.
And there are a few things that are not in this book—information I picked up and confirmed but left out because writing about it would cause too much damage to people, some powerful, some not, even if I didn’t use any names.
But much of what I heard didn’t come from Deep Throat sources in parking garages at three o’clock in the morning, but from what the big network stars said on their own newscasts and in other big public arenas, for the world to hear.
When Peter Jennings, for example, was asked about liberal bias, on Larry King Live on May 15, 2001, he said, I think bias is very largely in the eye of the beholder.
This might offend the two or three conservative friends I have, but I think Peter is right, except that instead of saying "very largely he should have left it as
sometimes in the eye of the beholder." Because it’s true that some people who complain about liberal bias think Al Roker the weatherman is out to get conservatives just because he forecast rain on the Fourth of July. And some people who say they want the news without bias really mean they want it without liberal bias. Conservative bias would be just fine.
Some of Dan, Tom, and Peter’s critics would think it fine if a story about affirmative action began, "Affirmative action, the program that no right-thinking American could possibly support, was taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court today." But I wouldn’t. Bias is bias.
It’s important to know, too, that there isn’t a well-orchestrated, vast left-wing conspiracy in America’s newsrooms. The bitter truth, as we’ll see, is arguably worse.
Even though I attack liberal bias, not liberal values, I will be portrayed by some of my old friends as a right-wing ideologue. Indeed, I’ve already faced this accusation. When I wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in 1996 about liberal bias among the media elites, my professional life turned upside down. I became radioactive. People I had known and worked with for years stopped talking to me. When a New York Post reporter asked Rather about my op-ed, Rather replied that he would not be pressured by political activists
with a political agenda
inside or outside
of CBS News. The inside
part, I think, would be me.
Sadly, Dan doesn’t think that any critic who utters the words liberal bias
can be legitimate, even if that critic worked with Dan himself for two decades. Such a critic cannot possibly be well-meaning. To Dan, such a critic is Spiro Agnew reincarnated, spouting off about those nattering nabobs of negativism. Too bad. A little introspection could go a long way.
I know that no matter how many examples I give of liberal bias, no matter how carefully I try to explain how it happens, some will dismiss my book as the product of bad blood, of a feud
between Dan Rather and me. How do I know this? Because that is exactly how Tom Brokaw characterized it when I wrote a second Wall Street Journal piece about liberal bias in May 2001.
In it I said that as hard as it may be to believe, I’m convinced that Dan and Tom and Peter don’t even know what liberal bias is.
The problem,
I wrote, is that Mr. Rather and the other evening stars think that liberal bias means just one thing: going hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. But real media bias comes not so much from what party they attack. Liberal bias is the result of how they see the world.
The very same morning the op-ed came out, Tom Brokaw was on C-SPAN promoting his new book, when Brian Lamb, the host, asked about my op-ed. Tom smiled and said he was bemused
by the column, adding, I know that he’s [Goldberg’s] had an ongoing feud with Dan; I wish he would confine it to that, frankly.
Here’s a bulletin: in my entire life I have mentioned Dan Rather’s name only once in a column, be it about liberal media bias or anything else. Five years earlier, when I wrote my first and only other piece about liberal bias, I did in fact talk about the media elites,
of which Dan surely is one. So counting that (and before this book), I have written exactly two times about Dan Rather and liberal bias—or, for that matter, about Dan Rather and any subject, period!
Two times! And that, to Tom Brokaw, constitutes a feud,
which strikes me as a convenient way to avoid an inconvenient subject that Tom and many of the other media stars don’t especially like to talk about or, for that matter, think too deeply about.
I also suspect that, thanks to this book, I will hear my named linked to the words disgruntled former employee
and vindictive.
While it’s true I did leave CBS News when it became clear that Dan would never
(his word) forgive me for writing about liberal bias in the news, let me state the following without any fear whatsoever that I might be wrong: Anyone who writes a book to be vindictive is almost certainly insane and at any moment could find himself standing before a judge who, acting well within the law, might sign official papers that could result in that vindictive
person being committed to a secure facility for people with mental defects.
I don’t know this from firsthand experience, but my guess is it would be easier to give birth to triplets than write a book, especially if you’ve never written one before. Staring at a blank page on a computer screen for hours and hours and hours is not the most efficient way to be vindictive. It seems to me that staring at the TV set for a couple of seconds and blowing a raspberry at the anchorman would take care of any vindictive feelings one might have.
So, does all of this lead to the inevitable conclusion that all the big-time media stars bat from the left side of the plate? Does it mean that there are no places in the media where the bent is undeniably conservative? Of course not!
Talk radio in America is overwhelmingly right of center. And there are plenty of conservative syndicated newspaper columnists. There are magazines of opinion
like the Weekly Standard and National Review. There’s Fox News on cable TV, which isn’t afraid to air intelligent conservative voices. And there’s even John Stossel at ABC News, who routinely challenges the conventional liberal wisdom on all sorts of big issues. But, the best I can figure, John’s just about the only one, which says a lot about the lack of diversity inside the network newsrooms.
On February 15, 1996, two days after my op-ed on liberal bias came out in the Wall Street Journal, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post wrote about the firestorm it was creating. The author was not some conservative media critic, but Bernard Goldberg, the veteran CBS News correspondent. His poison-pen missive has angered longtime colleagues, from news division president Andrew Heyward and anchor Dan Rather on down.
Kurtz quoted several dumbfounded CBS News people, one of whom suggested I resign, and ended his story with something I told him, more out of sadness than anything else. Journalists, I said, admire people on the outside who come forward with unpopular views, who want to make something better. But if you’re on the inside and you raise a serious question about the news, they don’t embrace you. They don’t admire you. They think you’re a traitor.
I am not a traitor, nor am I the enemy. And neither are the millions of Americans who agree with me. The enemy is arrogance. And I’m afraid it’s on the other side of the camera.
The News Mafia 1
Ican’t say the precise moment it hit me, but I do know that it was on a Sunday night while I was watching the HBO series The Sopranos. That’s when I started noticing that the wise guys in the mob and the news guys at the networks had the same kind of people skills.
Maybe Tony had somebody killed. Or maybe just roughed up. Or it might have been only words, something he said to his psychiatrist. I’m not sure. But the more I watched the more I saw how striking the similarities are between the Mafia and the media.
And, let the record show, I mean no disrespect to the Mafia.
In between hijacking trucks and throwing people off bridges, the wise guys are always going on about honor and loyalty and family, the holy trinity as far as guys with names like Tony Soprano and Paulie Walnuts are concerned. These are people who are exquisitely and monumentally delusional, of course. But it’s this fundamental belief—that despite the bad PR, deep down where it really counts, they are just a bunch of honorable men who care about the important things in life and only hurt people who hurt them—that allows the wise guys to crush anyone who gets in their way.
It’s the same with the News Mafia.
On The Sopranos, the biggest sin a wise guy can commit is to open his big mouth to the wrong people and blab about family business. On this matter, there is no difference—no difference whatsoever!—between the wise guys who operate in the dark shadows of the underworld and the news guys who supposedly operate in the bright sunlight. If a wise guy on The Sopranos—or one from the real-life Gambinos or Bonannos or Colombos—becomes too chatty about dirty little family secrets, there’s a very good chance he will get very unhealthy very quickly.
Same with the News Mafia.
Trust me. I’m speaking from up-close-and-personal firsthand experience, from twenty-eight years on the inside as a news correspondent with one of the three big families, CBS News.
So, what happened? Well, as Tony Soprano might put it to his old pal Pussy Bompensiero in the Bada Bing! Lounge: Bernie G opened his big mouth to the wrong people—and he got whacked! (Which is precisely what happened to Pussy after he opened his big mouth to the wrong people.)
The Don in this case is actually The Dan. Dan Rather. Capo di tutti news guys. It’s not generally known, but The Dan even speaks his own secret language, which around CBS is known as Dan-ish (it shouldn’t be confused with the language they speak in Denmark). In Dan-ish, it’s all my fault
means it’s all your fault
. . . no problem
means big problem
. . . don’t worry, amigo
means worry a lot, you unworthy piece of crap!
In The Dan’s presence, you get the feeling that if things start going wrong for The Dan, something real bad could start going wrong—for you!
If CBS News were a prison instead of a journalistic enterprise, three-quarters of the producers and 100 percent of the vice presidents would be Dan’s bitches. In the 1980s there actually was a vice president at CBS News whose unofficial title was vice president in charge of Dan Rather.
His main job was to make sure Dan was happy. This was a very important job.
But in spite of the aura of fear that surrounds The Dan, he’s also one of the most generous people I’ve ever known. At holiday time, I would often get a nice gift from The Dan. And if you were one of his loyal guys—and for twenty-five years, I was—he’d also send nice handwritten notes telling you how much he appreciated you being around. To this day—even though he’s the one who wanted me whacked—I still have an old framed picture on my wall at home in Miami of The Dan, with his arm around my young son, Brian, and me at CBS News in New York, all of us with big smiles.
And he’s also funny, in a disarming, folksy kind of way. If you’ve ever tuned in to CBS News on Election Night, you might think you hit the wrong button on your remote and stumbled onto an old rerun of Hee Haw.
Democrats and Republicans are nervous as pigs in a packing plant over these returns because the polls have closed and we don’t know the results.
Must be a hot race, huh, Dan?
Why, it’s hotter than an armadillo’s hide at a West Texas picnic on the Fourth of July.
How ’bout that cliffhanger down in Florida, Dan, between Dubya and Al Gore?
That race is tighter than the rusted lug nuts on a ’55 Ford.
Looks like Dubya’s got the lead.
Yeah, but that lead is shakier than cafeteria Jell-O.
Those boys sure are playin’ hardball, huh, Dan?
Nasty enough to gag a buzzard.
Who do you think will win?
I wouldn’t touch that one with an eleven-foot pole, which is the pole I reserve for things I won’t touch with a ten-foot pole.
That’s Dan playing Will Rogers on pork rinds. It’s all written down and rehearsed, of course, but Dan makes it sound like genuine, off-the-cuff, good-ol’-boy ad-libs.
I know that Dan Rather real well. And I like him.
But a few years ago, I got to meet the other Dan Rather, the one behind the big anchorman smile. The one the public doesn’t get to see. The one who operates with the cool precision of a Mafia hit man who kisses you on the cheek right before he puts a bullet through your eyeball.
So when that Dan assured me, sounding more like The Godfather than The Anchorman, that Bernie, we were friends yesterday, we’re friends today, and we’ll be friends tomorrow
—I knew I was dead.
It was just a matter of time.
February 13, 1996, was the day I committed my unpardonable sin and began to die.
Which was what, exactly? What terrible, unforgivable crime had I perpetrated against The Dan?
Did I sell crack to his kids?
No.
Did I spill a drink on his wife’s head at the CBS News Christmas party?
No.
Did I sneak into his office after work one night and make off with one of his Savile Row suits, which are tailored by the same house that made Edward R. Murrow’s clothes, and which cost more than my house?
No. But I wish I had.
What I did was worse. Much worse, as far as The Dan was concerned. I violated the code of omerta, the sacred code of silence that both wise guys and news guys live and die by.
I said out loud what millions of TV news viewers all over America know and have been complaining about for years: that too often, Dan and Peter and Tom and a lot of their foot soldiers don’t deliver the news straight, that they have a liberal bias, and that no matter how often the network stars deny it, it is true.
I would have been a lot better off if I had spilled a drink on his wife’s head, sold crack to his kids, and stolen one of his Savile Row suits!
Actually I didn’t say the networks were biased—I wrote it in one of the most important and widely read newspapers in the entire country, the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page liberals love to hate. In an op-ed piece, I wrote, "There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I’m more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don’t trust us. And for good reason.
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. No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.
As my old buddy Wayne, who’s never set foot in a newsroom in his life, put it, "What’s the big deal; everybody knows that’s true." Maybe, Wayne, but there’s a big difference between when Rush Limbaugh or Bill Buckley says it and when a CBS News correspondent says it.
This was coming from the inside, from one of Rather’s guys. Limbaugh could rave on about the liberal media all he wanted and the media elites would brush him off like a flake of dandruff on a blue suit. If William F. Buckley had written, word for word, what I had written, Dan Rather would have yawned