I had the pleasure recently of interviewing Bernie Goldberg.
http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Goldberg
Bernie Goldberg is the author of several bestsellers, including “Bias,” and “100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.” He eventually added more people, and a reprint of the book upped the list to 110 people. His newest book chronicles the mainstream media’s open and unapologetic cheerleading for Barack Obama to win the White House. The book is entitled “A Slobbering Love Affair,” and it is a must read.
I met Bernie Goldberg recently at the Nixon Library. He was very friendly, and agreed to an interview without hesitation. Although I was willing to do the interview by email to give him time, he liked the challenge of a rapid fire session over the telephone. It makes sense that a man who constantly criticizes journalists for shying away from tough questions and controlled settings would be willing to take a risk himself.
Bernie Goldberg is a proud Jewish Conservative. Like me, he does not shy away from controversy. The conversation lasted about 25 minutes, with none of it wasted. Yet at no time during the interview did he mention that he has won Nine…yes nine…Emmy awards for writing journalism, and political coverage. The truly best do not have to announce their accomplishments. I only found out about his achievements because I did what people are supposed to do…research.
Also, in the past he appeared with Jane Hall of American University on “The O’Reilly Factor” in a weekly segment. While Ms. Hall appears less often, Bernie Goldberg still makes periodic appearances.
With that, I present my interview with the wise, witty, and spot on accurate Bernie Goldberg.
1) Does the media get anything right? Are they good at anything, and if so, what?
BG: “I am not making a blanket indictment of all journalists all the time. They are not engaged in a conspiracy. They are engaged in something worse, and that is groupthink. Groupthink is worse because it institutionalizes biases. Conservatives looking for a conspiracy will not find one.
Some journalists do or did a great job. Tim Russert of Meet the Press, rest his soul, was very fair.
The media are at their worst when it comes to social issues. Social issues are near and dear to liberals’ hearts, so they don’t see biases. They see their views as reasonable. Anything liberal is the center, and anything in the real center is described as being on the right.”
2) Who are your three journalistic heroes?
BG: “I don’t have journalistic heroes. I think heroes are for kids. As I said, Tim Russert was great. As hard as I am on him, what I give Dan Rather credit for is that he has covered every major story since JFK. He does have courage. He goes to the dangerous places to cover news. The reason he is not on this list is because of his problem. He does not take serious criticism seriously.
If we can expand the list beyond journalists, I like Charles Krauthammer. He is great. Brett Stephens of the Wall Street Journal does good work. For hard news, Jack Taperow of ABC News does the job well.”
3) Since you put out the list, if you could add to it, who else is screwing up America?
BG: “Excellent question. I am glad you asked that. Right now, at number freaking one, would be the District Attorney in the Duke rape case, Mike Nifong. Race is way too sensitive to fool around with. He did it for the worst reasons, to get reelected. At the time I wrote the book, I had Michael Moore at number one. However, if I were writing the book today, he would not be number one. My lists are based on time periods, and Michael Moore would be lower on the list now. Mike Nifong is simply a villain. He is a major villain.
There is one guy on MSNBC…I don’t want to mention his name, but he is angry and meanspirited. He brings people down when they see him, whether it be in real life or even on television. As I said, I am sure you can figure out a clever way to mention Keith Olbermann without me having to mention his name. It is not about being liberal. He is just plain nasty.”
4) Who are some people that are good for America?
BG: “People we don’t know. One man I admire is Aaron Feuerstein. He is an Orthodox Jew that owned Malden Mills in Massachusetts. When a fire burned Malden Mills to the ground, he kept the plant open and kept all of his employees on the payroll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Feuerstein
There is a Jewish group that collects money for Scandinavians who helped save lives during the Holocaust. Imagine being an elderly person, and then finding out that people you helped a half of a century ago are helping you in your golden years.
There are many good people. We don’t know them, but they make the world a better place.”
5) When Hamas and Fatah are fighting, I find it very difficult to take sides. I want them both to lose. In the same vein, who are you siding with between liberal democrats Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer?
BG: “Jim Cramer. Cramer got a big call very wrong. Yet even many big conservative financial institutions got it wrong. Lots of people got it wrong. I know plenty of people who got it wrong. Cramer is one of them, but he is public.
Also, this was a cheap shot by Jon Stewart. Stewart waited until after Cramer criticized Barack Obama. I have met Jon Stewart twice. He is very polite, very civil, and very liberal.
Cramer is one of many that got it wrong, but because he is public, he takes it between the eyeballs.”
6) Who are your three political heroes, be they American or global?
BG: “Tony Blair is one. He was courageous. He spoke eloquently, especially on saying that it was impossible for people to say that with regards to Muslim terrorists, even though they disapproved of the violence, that ‘they understood.’ That is contradictory, and Blair pointed this out brilliantly.
Newt Gingrich is one of the smartest people with regards to his ideas, but he could not win election to the Presidency. He has too much baggage. However, he is a real thinker.
Bill Bennett is another one. I like smart conservatives. I like the ones that are civil, decent, and listen to the other side. Charles Krauthammer, who I have mentioned more than once, is fabulous. He was a licensed psychiatrist, and he was the one who coined the term ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome.'”
7) If you had five minutes to talk to President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, what would you say to them or ask them?
BG: “I would ask President Bush, with regard sto the Iraq War, ‘Was it worth it? Could we have contained Saddam?’ We have 4000 dead Americans, and President Bush’s popularity fell so low that it allowed Democrats to take over and shove their liberal agenda down our throats. If we could have contained Saddam Hussein, that might have been better for us economically, and President Bush would have had higher popularity. He would have been more beloved, which would have prevented the loss of Congress and the White House. So I would ask him today if based on everything, if he felt the Iraq War was worth it.”
8.) Where do you see the media in twenty years, and what role will the blogosphere play? Will the Jayson Blair Times even exist in twenty years?
BG: “The mainstream media will continue to become less and less relevant. Their problem is that they refuse to be introspective. I have said before that the guys at 7/11 selling Slurpees and Camels to insomniacs are more introspective than the mainstream media. The internet and cable television are killing newspapers and broadcast news.
I would be amazed if three evening newscasts even existed in the future. Newspapers in their current form may not exist in two years, much less twenty years. This is mainly due to technology, but also due to ideology.
As for the web, the best and the most vile journalism can be found on the web. The bad part is that people think that they can be nasty and vile, and that they do not have to do any research. If the worst of the web takes hold, it will be like hell. It will be the dark corner of a lunatic asylum.
I hope that growing pains allow those relying on anonymity to grow up.
As for the New York Times, Bill O’Reilly thinks it will be gone in a year. I am going to boldly say that they will still exist in twenty years. They may not exist in the same format, but to the consternation of conservatives, I am predicting that they will survive.”
9) Given that all conservatives must be categorized as either evil, or as complete imbeciles, with President George W. Bush somehow being both, I want to know about a conspiracy that might involve you since at some point you might become a target. I will just ask. She has not been on O’Reilly lately. What have you done to Jane Hall?
BG: “I will answer that off the record. I will tell you the story, but off the record.”
(What I can say without revealing anything Bernie Goldberg told me is that Jane Hall is alive and well. Therefore, I will not be sending Angela Lansbury or Andy Griffith to his house to investigate. At the risk of being almost as lazy as a mainstream journalist on the nightly news, I am exonerating him and declaring this matter closed.)
10) How would you like to be remembered 100 years from now? What would you want people to say about Bernie Goldberg the person?
BG: “I was an honest critic of the profession that I spent my entire adult life in. I had courage. I wrote things that put me in jeopardy.
My advice to people is to do something you believe in just once in your life and you will feel better about yourself. You don’t have to do it every week, or even twice in your life. Just do what you deeply believe at least once in your life.
In 1996, I wrote an op-ed about media bias. It changed my life, thankfully for the better.
I was an honest reporter who gave both sides a fair shot. I was an honest critic as well. I was a critic whose criticism of the media showed more than anything else how much i cares for my profession.
I meant well, and tried to do the right thing. I had courage. I hope people say that I stood up, did what I thought was right, and made the profession better for it.”
I would like to thank Bernie Goldberg for his time. I am occasionally in his stomping grounds of Miami, and at some point I look forward to meeting him again.
Until I am a regular guest on O’Reilly myself, I will happily declare his best guest segments to be the ones where the mainstream media is given their Castor Oil by Bernie Goldberg.
They may never learn, but he is absolutely right to keep speaking out.
My friends and I will also be extending an invitation for him to join our unofficial group, the Zionist Crusader Alliance For World Domination. We don’t actually do anything but sit and talk politics and football, but we are nominating Sir Charles of Krauthammer to lead the group.
Regardless of whether or not our membership increases by 33%, I will say that Bernie Goldberg is good for America, and great for his industry.
I wish him well always.
eric
I’m sorry, but I personally have to seriously question this guy’s integrity. I would love to speak with him. I mean, how is Michael Moore bad for America? If you don’t like his message, don’t listen! He’s not forcing anyone to listen to him! And he takes Cramer’s side over Stewarts? Stewart caught Cramer admitting to committing the very unethical activities that lead to this economic disaster, and Stewart is the bad guy because of the timing of his critique? Either Goldberg is lying, or ignorant of the facts. Stewart did NOT single out Cramer, he was criticizing ALL of those idiots at CNBC and Cramer just took it personally. THAT is what started the Cramer v Stewart story. So again, either Goldberg is lying or is just repeating a lie perpetrated by the Fox “News” and Hate Talk radio bunch. And again I question whether he is a liar when he says the newspapers are in trouble because “they refuse to be introspective.” Having been a reporter, this man should know that ALL newspapers, right, left or indiffferent, are in trouble these days. The advertising dollars have moved with the audience to the internet. This isn’t about introspection – this is simply about a more conventient product. Any member of the press who says otherwise almost HAS to be lying! I don’t think Bernie Goldberg is an “honest critic.” I think he’s a pandering profiteer. There’s a market out there for lowbrow ranting and he’s filling that niche. If you ask me, it’s people like him that are screwing up America, because they keep people’s eye’s off the REAL issues we face as a people.
JMJ
“I mean, how is Michael Moore bad for America? ”
Hes a liar, just for starters, which was proven when many of the claims in his farenhieght garbage were exposed as bull.
Fahrenheit Lie #1
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie telling a reporter, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
The scene deceptively shows the Administration directly blaming Saddam and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 by taking her comments out of context. Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.” (CBS News, November 28, 2003 Interview)
Fahrenheit Lie #2
In the film, Moore leads viewers to believe that members of bin Laden’s family were allowed to exit the country after the attacks without questioning by authorities. o The September 11th commission, on the other hand, reported that 22 of the 26 people on the flight that took most of the bin Laden family out of the country were interviewed and found to be innocent of suspicion. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
The commission reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”
Fahrenheit Lie #3
Moore claims that James Bath, a friend of President Bush from his time with the Texas Air National Guard, might have funneled bin Laden money to an unsuccessful Bush oil-drilling firm called Arbusto Energy.
Bill Allison, managing editor for the Center for Public Integrity (an independent watchdog group in Washington, D.C.), on the other hand, said, “We looked into bin Laden money going to Arbusto, and we never found anything to back that up,” (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Fahrenheit Lie #4
The movie claims that the Bush administration “supported closing veterans hospitals.” o “The Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
But Moore’s film fails to mention that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also proposed building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers (News Release, Department of Veterans Affairs, http://www.va.gov, 10/24/03)
Fahrenheit Lie #5
Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore’s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998).
Moore “suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai … was to help seal a deal for … Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.” (emphasis added) (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, “Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,” and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.
While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with the Clinton Administration on this visit. (Matt Labash, “Un-Moored From Reality; Fahrenheit 9/11 Connects Dots That Aren’t There,” Weekly Standard, July 5-July 12 Issue)
Fahrenheit Lie #6
Even readily available figures are exaggerated for effect in Fahrenheit 9/11. The claims have a basis in reality, making them believable, but are false nonetheless. ü In the film, Moore asks Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, “How much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?” to which Unger responds, “Uh, I’ve heard figures as high as $860 billion.”
The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion – a figure much lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the U.S. (Tanya C. Hsu, Institute For Research: Middle Eastern Policy, “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment,” http://www.irmep.org, Accessed 07/11/04)
The Institute reports that 60 percent of that $700 billion – roughly $420 billion, less than half of what Unger “heard” – was actually invested in the United States by the Saudi government.
Fahrenheit Lie #7
“Moore’s film suggests that [President] Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family – principally through [President] Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family – who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms – had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group ‘gained’ from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
“There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire [Soros] has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
Fahrenheit Lie #8
Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so. ü Moore shows film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation, claiming that the Administration “welcomed” the Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.”
But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban’s claim that it had complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden.
To demonstrate even further the Administration’s contempt for the Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher – on the day of the terrorist regime’s visit – said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan.”
Fahrenheit Lie #9
Moore does more than simply downplay the threat posed to the U.S. by the former Hussein regime in Iraq. He goes so far as to assert that Saddam “never threatened to attack the United States.”
If by “attack the United States” one interprets this claim to mean that Saddam never threatened to send troops to the United States, then Mr. Moore has a point. ü But Saddam Hussein clearly sought to attack the United States within his own sphere of influence, even though he didn’t have the resources to attack U.S. soil from his side of the world:
On November 15, 1997, “the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein’s son Uday), ordered: ‘American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces.’” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
In addition, “Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country,” (Source: New York Times, 12/1/03).
Saddam Hussein also provided safe haven to terrorists who killed Americans, like Abu Nidal; funded suicide bombers in Israel who certainly killed Americans; and ran the Iraqi police, which plotted to assassinate former President George Bush.
“and Stewart is the bad guy because of the timing of his critique?”
Yea, but he conveniently left out Frank, Dodd and the other dems who were largely responsible for a good part of the meltdown.
Those bozos had more to do with it than Kramer did, thats for damn sure !
“because they keep people’s eye’s off the REAL issues we face as a people.”
Nah, Michael Mooore was better at that.
Mick rests his case. Well done.
Toma
Bernie’s life was never in jeapordy. Jeopardy, now, that’s another matter! ;)
Condi Rice said that it was obvious that while Afghanistan protected
and gave safe haven to Bin Ladin, those involved with 911 came from Saudi Arabia.
Seems to this observer that many countries and people in the M.E.
had something to do with 911, by in some way encouraging Al Qaeda.
Our (as well as the West’s) dependency on Saudi oil, has obviously
colored (or should I say prejudiced) our relationship with that otherwise
innocuous, sand infested country. Absent oil, we would relate to them, like we do most
countries on this planet. have an embassy or consulate, nothing more.
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. He killed his own people in the
hundreds of thousands. He did invade a fellow Arab country and was
behind several wars. He violated over 15 UNSC resolutions and robbed
his people of oil revenue (built 60 plus palaces). He launched Scud Missiles
at his neighbors. He was capable building WMD and used them.
His attacks in the no-fly zones did imperil our pilots.
I am also convinced that we were correct in getting rid of
Saddam Hussein’s regime after all the mischief he had done.
We were wrong however, in declaring Mission Accomplished
on that aircraft carrier. The sign should have read, “Saddam gone”.
Six years later we are still protecting the Sunni against the Shias,
and the Shias against the Sunnis and our ultimate oil interests.
This was a hard call for Bush, and when finally the decision was made
to change regimes..we (the US) made the correct one.
History will judge our actions, not Cramer or anyone else.
The American people, while for the war originally, turned against it
as the mission was not accomplished. Like everything else,
we in the US want things done easily and quickly. As long as they are
going well, we approve. We are a very, very, spoiled people. Yet
we did continue to finance this war and still are. So whose to say?
Looking back, did we make a much larger error in Vietnam I ask?
History in my opinion says we did.
The war in Iraq will end and we will bring our troops home.
But there will always be other challanges and problems. That is
the fact of this exploding planet. Who knows, maybe Russia will
build that base in Cuba. Then what? What will Obama and his
whiz kids do when Iran tests an atomic bomb then follows up
with bombs over Tel Aviv or Cairo or New York?
Very good interview. Very good questions. I especially appreciate the “Off the record” part that shows your integrity and ability to keep a confidence. Something lacking in much of the MSM today.
I guess if some snitch is going to try to surreptitiously “leak information” through you they would be disappointed. Unlike those “unnamed sources” who tell state secrets to major news outlets…
Dav Lev,
This “Mission Accomplished” thing always upsets me. It upset me when
Bush brought it up as a mistake at the end of his term. The Sailors aboard the U.S.S Lincoln but that banner up because their mission was accomplished. It was percieved by the media and the American people the wrong way
I am not saying that you don’t understand or know the full story, but that spin has been but on that story for years and it always irks me a bit. :)
Great interview Eric, I am trying not to be envious.
I liked the interview and learned a bit more about BG. However I have always wondered two things.
1) Why is he only a critic of the comments on the liberals? I would like to see if he could be honest about the media on the right. They have many problems also. I mean if your going to be honest you can`t take sides.
2) During the election one nite on O`reilly BG was read a fact from a political survey that said that 20-30 of whites would not vote for a black man . Bernie flat out said he did`nt believe it. Then spouted how all white people are goodand there are no racist. I know many whites did vote for O`bama, and thats a powerful thing. But you can`t wash over the fact that some people were being honest, when they said they would not vote for a black man for president.
His point of view did not make sense to me.