Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (21840)	1/8/2002 5:19:17 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Tom Shales is the television critic for the Washington Post, and a boob.....

To: KLP who wrote (21840)	1/8/2002 5:25:17 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 59480

What he doesn't mention is that Goldberg's book is now #1 - something Shales will never have to worry about. What he doesn't mention is that nasty Eric Engberg - the impetus for the original WSJ article - left CBS a few days ago. Funny how the two coincide.

To: KLP who wrote (21840)	1/9/2002 8:05:06 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

Hailed As "Great Journalist" by Dan Rather, Eric Engberg Was Poster Boy for CBS’s Worst Liberal Bias Good Riddance to Two-Faced Reality Checks CBS News has been championing its retiring "Reality Check" correspondent Eric Engberg as the very model of fair reporting. "We will miss his professionalism, his humor, his style, his friendship and his great journalism," mourned anchor Dan Rather on Friday’s Evening News. "Engberg’s reporting and his approach to journalism reflect many of the virtues of broadcast journalism at its best," gushed CBSNews.com editor Dick Meyer, Engberg’s former producer, in an online tribute. As Engberg would scream in his regular Evening News hit jobs on conservatives, "Time out!" The idea that such a thoroughly biased reporter symbolized "journalistic virtues" is a cruel joke on objective scribes everywhere. It was one of Engberg’s outrageously slanted stories — a mid-campaign slam on conservative Steve Forbes’s flat tax plan in ‘96 — that so disgusted his CBS colleague Bernard Goldberg that he cited it in a Wall Street Journal op-ed as proof that the argument about "liberal bias is so blatantly true that it’s hardly worth discussing anymore." But it’s more than just one skewed story which makes Engberg the poster boy for liberal bias. Engberg used his CBS pulpit to rant against perceived conservative misbehavior while condemning critics of unethical liberals: # Before Bill Clinton, there was nothing worse than a President who lied. On the May 4, 1989 CBS Evening News, at the end of the criminal trials stemming from the Iran-contra scandal, Engberg lectured that "secrecy leads to deception...Deception leads to lies. Lies tear apart the rule of law...Could it happen again? Scholars say yes, until Presidents accept the need to compromise with Congress." # Covering Clinton’s scandals, there was nothing more frightening than a subpoena. "It is now the one invitation in Washington no one wants, a call to testify before Ken Starr’s grand jury. It left some near emotional collapse, others raging about police state tactics," he darkly declared on the March 2, 1998 Evening News. "Nearly all of the witnesses, it is safe to say, felt the ominous chill that comes with the arrival of a grand jury subpoena." # According to his friend Dick Meyer, Engberg was "obsessed" with a 1988 TV ad about Michael Dukakis’s weekend furlough for murderer Willie Horton, who then went on a crime spree. Four years later — and less than a month before the next election — on the Oct. 14, 1992 Evening News, Engberg resurrected his grudge against the ad he claimed "raised questions about racism and dirty politics that still haunt the electoral process like a ghost," adding that, "federal laws may have been violated" if the GOP had coordinated with the ad’s independent producer. # When it came to Clinton’s dirty campaign dealings — including proof the President personally reviewed scripts for supposedly "independent" ads — Engberg chose to beat up on the investigators. He scolded the Senate’s oversight committee, declaring on the October 9, 1997 Evening News that "when it comes to sniffing out the breakdown of a system created to police money in politics, this committee...could easily start by setting up a great big mirror." # After the bipartisan Cox commission determined in 1999 that the Chinese had been stealing nuclear secrets right out from under Clinton’s nose, Engberg seemed to suggest on the May 27 Evening News that a few H-bombs were nothing to get excited about. "There is a bottom line," he snorted. "Unlike many of the things in the Cox report, there’s no argument here. Number of strategic nuclear weapons? U.S., 6,000; China, less than two dozen." Now that Engberg’s finally gone, CBS viewers will be spared such tendentious factoids. The airwaves feel less biased already. -- Rich Noyes www.mediaresearch.org

To: KLP who wrote (21840)	1/10/2002 12:46:39 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Shrieking Shales Tom Shales on the other Goldberg. By Jonah Goldberg January 9, 2002, 11:10 a.m. As we all know (especially if we've seen Spinal Tap), there's a fine line between clever and stupid. For professional writers, particularly ones who try to be biting or funny, this is an insight of perpetual relevance because writing, by definition, is very much about how you say something and not just about what you say. Insulting is easy: "You're ugly." Insulting with ingenuity is more difficult; "Why didn't the crows finish eating your face?" I bring this up because I've just read Tom Shales's "review" of Bernard Goldberg's book, Bias. Tom Shales can write good movie and TV reviews. Maybe he can write good book reviews. But having only read this one, I must say, the evidence weighs mightily against him. To be honest I cannot recall having read a review that was snottier, sillier, more feeble and hysterical than this one. I certainly can't remember one from a high-profile writer with talent. If I were Shales I would be mortified for having written it. It speaks for itself. The handful of half-points Shales makes are so dipped in irrationally bitter rhetoric they seem intended only to serve as moments of pause for him to catch his breath before the bitchy shrieking resumes. He addresses no arguments in a manner even in the most distant orbit of good faith. He stipulates up front that it is a "canard" that the media is liberal or left-leaning and then proceeds to protest so much that a rational person can only conclude Shales himself knows this is a lie. I've got no quarrel with full-throated criticisms. But stringing together a collection of unthinking, unfunny, inane, ad hominem attacks obviously based in personal animosity takes as much skill as saying "I know you are, but what am I?" Is Goldberg beyond criticism? Of course not. I myself find conservative media criticism to be, among other things, a bit tedious. Not because it's not valid, but because everyone knows it is (See Goldberg Variations). But, if I were Bernard Goldberg I would take great pleasure from Shales's review. It's the best proof so far that Bernie has hit a nerve. nationalreview.com