Other Columns by Doug Patton
Doug Patton Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Dan Rather Has No Clothes
By Doug Patton
April 8, 2002

"I have it on good authority that my liberal friends in the news media... are planning a big party to congratulate me for writing this book... 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."
-- Bernard Goldberg, from the Introduction to his best-selling book, "Bias"

In the old tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes," a young boy is the only person in the kingdom who possesses the honesty and temerity to mention that the king, who has been deceived into believing he is clad in fine, new clothing, is, in fact, wearing nothing. Bernard Goldberg is the modern equivalent of that brave little boy.

Judging from the sales of Goldberg's expose of the bare-naked emperors of the national media, I must be the last conservative in the country to read his bestseller, "Bias," subtitled, "A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News."

Focusing on the news divisions of the broadcast networks - with special emphasis on CBS News, where he spent his entire 28-year career as a broadcast journalist - Goldberg strips away what little is left of the facade of objectivity still clinging to the broadcast news elites. We learn more about arrogant CBS anchorman Dan Rather than we ever wanted to know, with Goldberg at one point comparing his penchant for holding grudges to that of Richard Nixon.

Goldberg also leaves little doubt that his indictments extend to the print media as well, confirming our suspicions that Rather, Jennings and Brokaw, et al., follow like lemmings the lead of The New York Times, the bible of liberal journalism.

It is not difficult to spot examples, even in your hometown gazette. For instance, in an Associated Press article entitled (in my local paper) "Fighting Only Delays Political Dilemma for Israeli Leader Sharon," which deals with the opinions of the Israeli people and how they view their leaders in this time of crisis, the statement is made that "Surveys have indicated that the public (is) becoming more dovish on the issues."

Oh really?

>From The Jerusalem Post, April 5, 2002: "Seventy-two percent of Israelis support the government's decision to wage wide-scale war in the territories, according to a poll commissioned by The Jerusalem Post...Additionally, a plurality of Israelis - 36% - favor Yasser Arafat's expulsion from the territories, while another 23% believe he should be "eliminated." Only 15% favor a return to negotiations with him."

Throughout the Associated Press article, Prime Minister Sharon is called a "longtime hawk," "right-wing" and "hard-line." These descriptions alone are probably fair. As an Israeli Army commander and a Likud Party politician, this man has been a hard-line, right wing hawk. Fair enough.

But observe how this same AP story treats Sharon's political opponents: They are referred to as "the moderate Labor Party." Why? Labor is considered by some to be a party of pacifists who would lead the tiny nation into more useless "peace talks" with people whose only goal is to destroy Israel. So why is Sharon and his Likud Party called "hawkish," "hard-line" and "right-wing," yet his political opposition is labeled "moderate?"

A fair rendering of the political situation in Israel at the moment would read something like this:

Jerusalem (AP) - Opinions vary on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's military retaliation against Yasser Arafat's PLO-sponsored terrorism. Sharon's left-wing opponents in the Labor Party say his hawkish actions have bloodied the streets of cities on both sides and must come to a halt in order to pave the way for peace talks. In statements reminiscent of former British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain in his talks with Adolph Hitler, pacifist Labor leaders here are hoping to force a referendum on Sharon's record by criticizing the prime minister's hard-line approach to the conflict. This criticism within his own government creates a political dilemma for the right-wing Sharon. Should he continue to defend his nation, or sit down once more with those who wish to destroy him and his country?

Okay, that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the idea. As Goldberg points out, whenever a liberal expresses an opinion, that point of view is treated as mainstream and described as "moderate." Anything to the right of that is considered outside the mainstream and labeled accordingly. Since most people in the national media are liberal, and everyone they know is liberal, they see every opinion to the right of theirs as "extreme," "right-wing" or just plain crazy, and we get a liberal spin on our news.

And the New York media establishment scratches its collective head in disbelief as America continues to turn to Fox News and talk radio.