Talk:Bernard Goldberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Bernard Goldberg, has edited Wikipedia as
Bernardgoldberg (talk · contribs)
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bernard Goldberg article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Discussion

Is there any particular reason for including the Daily Show appearance? It seems like a rather unimportant sidenote, lacking any real significance to the man or the book.

I see no reason not to include it. When a public figure gets publically embarassed by his own hypocrisy, that's notable. 68.47.175.214 23:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
That seems to be a rather tenuous justification. For one, the information contained in the article does not indicate that Goldberg is a hypocrite; rather it indicates that he is somewhat sloppy in his argumentation and analysis of his chosen issue, but that is hardly noteworthy. This is especially so considering that the criticism comes from a fake-news program. While the Daily Show does have many merits and virtues, in-depth critical analysis is not one of them. But in the end I suppose it comes down to a rather simple question: in a year will anyone care that Goldberg even appeared on the Daily Show, much less what happened there? Thought 02:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the Daily Show cuts through the BS and political correctness of politicians and pundits like Bernard Goldberg a heck of a lot better than any "news" network. Second of all, you're completely missing the point. The point Stewart was making (that you obviously chose to ignore), was that it was highly hypocritical of Goldberg to write a book blaming the ills of America on people who don't have any power in Washington, while giving George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Karl Rove, Richard Perle and their ilk, a free pass. Stewart nailed Goldberg on this hypocrisy, and that's why it's worth mentioning. Ericster08 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A better-sourced critic might be The Daily Howler, which gives counter-examples to Goldberg's writing, with references. The Daily Howler is shrill, but there's verifiable research behind it.--RattBoy 00:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ericster08, you seem to be a liberal, so I'll explain something to you. Since The Daily Show is not live, Jon Stewart can edit the interview to fit his own viewpoint and make anyone on his show look like an ass. He is a shame to news networks everywhere. The point of Goldberg's book was to show those who are popular tend to gain political clout. He left the "ilk" off the List because he likes those guys and the jobs they're doing. He despises Michael Moore for trashing the American people and anyone (every Republican alive) who disagrees with his leftist, not gonna find out why things are the way they are and instead push my illogical agenda agenda. Moore is a blowhard who doesn't back up his "films" with logic or facts, but instead with guilt and emotion.PokeHomsar (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tit for tat

Cut from article:

Many of his critics argue that this is similar to how conservatives whom he supports often view the world and that therefore he is ignoring certain biases in his own political camp.

Is it really necessary to include in every article about liberalism critics, the standard rebuttal that liberals think it is not they who are biased but really the conservatives? This POV is as well known as the sphericity of the earth; the media swims in it. At most, it's one click away. Uncle Ed 16:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary to include balance in articles. Just because you disagree with this viewpoint does not give you the right to annihilate it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davfoster88 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 7 September 2005.

[redacted comment by 137.146.149.212]

[edit] Bias.

Is this section necessary? it doesn't add anything to the article, nor does it make much sense

"Some have criticized Goldberg for his biases though. In "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America", Goldberg ranks President Jimmy Carter (number 6) above the Unknown American Terrorist (number 23). The book is an attack on liberals for the most part."

[redacted comment by 64.122.235.85]

[edit] Balance?

In the interest of balance, then, would it not be fair to include some of Goldberg's less extreme quotes? Perhaps one or two which provide a bit of context would be fair.

Yeah, I'm certainly taking the one about Rush and Bill out. The ONLY reason it was put in there is because Rush and Bill are somewhat unpopular with moderates and liberals alike. Whoever put that quote in there was politically motivated to do so. I took out a couple others too that were obviously just put in there to make him look bad. I put the one about the evening news though his criticism of modern news programs is certainly one of his recurring topics. This is also a completely neutral statement. It doesn't make Goldberg look good or bad, it just reflects a belief that he feels very passionately about. -Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I put them back. Saying the people on the coasts of the USA are responsible for cultural meanness, that he admires Limbaugh and O'Reilly a lot, and that telling Leahy to fuck himself was overdue; can be taken by people who agree with him as positive, and people who disagree with him as negative. "To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss." certainly makes the Khmer Rouge leadership look bad to people who disagree with it - why should we remove well sourced strong comments if some people think it makes the people who said it look bad? -- Jeandré, 2007-10-20t21:10z

[edit] Conservative?

There's a mini-revert war going on with the first sentence, between those who want to list Goldberg as a conservative and those who don't. The most recent edit, by Irwing, simply says "(this (i.e., his conservatism) was not confirmed)." I'm not certain how one would "confirm" someone's conservatism, but I think Goldberg's conservatism is obvious on its face. Since his spat with CBS, he's literally made a career out of attacking liberals. He may claim to balance, but his latest book attacks liberals at a far greater rate than the few "safe" conservative targets he lists. (He lists Jimmy Carter high, for e.g., but doesn't choose to mention Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, or Jean Schmidt. He lists George Soros, but not Richard Mellon Scaife or Grover Norquist; he lists Michael Moore, Dan Rather, and Al Franken, but not Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or Ann Coulter...etc. ¿Does anyone see a pattern here?) In IMHO, he should be listed as a conservative.--RattBoy 10:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry that I didn't explain my revert, but it referred to previously revert of the same word done by BigDoginTallGrass which included also some source. Back to my "not confirmed" note - I wonder how can someone imply that man is conservative simply from the fact, that he's criticizing liberals (and vice-versa, of course, but that is not this situation). This is not about the balance - even if all people he's attacking were liberals, only this fact wouldn't make him a conservative. That's why I think you should source such statement based on his opinions, not from what he is doing. Irwing 14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Does it matter? Conservative and Liberal are poorly defined terms, especially in the US. Goldberg considers himself to be a JFK liberal. There's been quite a few prominant conservatives in the GOP (including Reagan, Sen Phil Gramm) who also were Democrats in those days, they often argue that it was the party who changed, not them. So it's possible to simultaneously be a liberal in an old-fashioned sense, and a conservative in the present sense. --Asm71 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It should. If this is encyclopedia, it shouldn't join usual term mess. Irwing 07:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Problem paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_Goldberg&diff=prev&oldid=113606700

  1. The Bozell article cited is written as a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism, and does not literally contain the criticisms stated above.
  2. The Franken reference is already in the article in NPOV form.
  3. The "convenience researcher" remark is unsupported by citation.

I do not own this article. I have no opinion for or against Goldberg or his critics. Please contribute accurate encyclopedic content which is attributable to reliable sources. --Lexein 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In Not Your Father's Encyclopedia, Brent Bozell cites this article as fodder for criticism of Wikipedia. Asteriks 09:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • That's interesting. I intend to concisely re-insert Bozell's actual humourous criticism after a cool-down period. --Lexein 11:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been at Wikipedia now, for over 5 years. This kind of thing goes on quite a bit.
The "NPOV" policy is broken, because enforcement depends of "good faith" contributions. There is not, however, any effective mechanism for distinguishish between good faith and bad faith.
The result is that if 'enough' contributors band together they can 'own' the page and suppress any attempts to make the text conform to stated policy.
It ought to be possible to make an immediate appeal to an editorial board, who would extract the disputed text pending resolution. But Wikipedia is geared toward anonymous amateurs and has by design no editorial board. This is the problem that old-timer User:Larry Sanger tried to address, and which I have also tried to address. In fact, I'm "on probation" because I mistakenly thought the arbitration committee would (or could) serve as an editorial board, but they just said that my attempts to preserve neutrality were "tendentious" and "POV-pushing". Ironically, each edit cited as evidence for this was precisely the opposite: I was removing unsoureced 'original research' assertions and adding contrary "well-sourced" assertions.
To the extent that a "Liberal point of view" has become the "consensus" of Wikipedia, its reputation will suffer. I suggest that Wikipedia actually have a policy of scrupulous neutrality on every matter of significant public controversy. Not that a flat earth has any considerable following of course - that view just gets a single, isolated entry. But on something like global warming, which Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe says US registered voters are split 50-50, I'd expect Wikipedia to tread lightly. At least, they should not endorse the US Liberal POV that the science is settled or that there is a scientific consensus. --Uncle Ed 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please keep discussion to improvements to the article.
  1. The misquotation which I took to Talk was done by a user who professes counterintent to WP policy and blanked his User:Talk page to hide my notes (look up his User page history and User:Talk history)
  2. "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. "
  3. Bozell's valid complaint about this article a)referred to its appearance before I policy-edited it and b)did not address his shared responsibility to edit it. --Lexein 01:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops- my mistake, he a) did refer to it post-edit--Lexein 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Because the Bozell "criticism" was not a criticism, and I won't be putting it back in the Criticism section. Perhaps Humor. There may be a need for a counterbalancing Support section. --Lexein 01:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation

I've removed the quotation. No sources have been found for it, and I can't find anything supporting this. Ral315 » 18:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It was referenced in a blog about an interview, but that doesn't really count. I hoped it was in his book, but I don't have it. It can be resurrected later if sourced. --Lexein 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Revisions

I did some moderate editing to the article today. I am by no means a fan of this guy, but I did try to snip some of the POV wording out. I also tried to put in more details about his early career. And I ordered the article so that the awards/recognition and criticism is in the same section - I believe, especially with contentious subjects, that accomplishments and criticism should be grouped together to provide as balanced and NPOV a narrative as possible. NickBurns 21:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undocumented deletions

There have been a number of undocumented deletions to this article. They were likely done in good faith. Such edits have triggered a revert war in the past. In this case, I have reverted such a deletion with the request to Please supply an Edit Summary or discuss in Talk for any deletions which might be controversial. Thank you. --Lexein 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonah Goldberg

Does Bernard Goldberg have any relation with another conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg? WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote Section

Most of those quotes show Goldberg in a negative light, there needs to be a few more neutral quotes so there is a balance. 71.211.211.189 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protect

Just saw him bash Wikipedia on O'Reilly and knew his page was in for an assault. Should it be semi-protected? Stan weller 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

go for it. this talk page is proof that people are trying to keep it encyclopedic though. fair and balanced 76.182.229.209 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked on the O'Reilly website and could not find the Goldberg interview. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind I found it. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)