Arizona Republic on Bernard Goldberg's 'Bias'

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020125/170/10o2j.html

I find it ironic that while deriding Goldberg for his bias, the author uses says the following:

"It's ironic that Goldberg's book has come out during a time when right-wing media watchdogs - who can find a socialist tilt in the weather report - are offering virtually nothing but praise for mainstream journalists' coverage since Sept. 11."

What I find particularly interesting is that Goldberg himself says exactly that--that there are those on the right that find a left-wing agenda in Al Roker's weather report--in 'Bias'.

I also find it telling that much of the criticism of 'Bias' -- this article included -- doesn't address the fundamental point of bias: that network news, which pretends to be objective, doesn't cover the news objectively. You might not like how he said it, or agree that the bias can be characterized as liberal, but you can't make the claim that mainstream news is objective, or that we can depend on Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and 48 hours or any news magazine to give us balanced coverage.

While it may not be an issue to the people in the network news rooms or inside the Washington beltway, the fact that network news is not balanced is a big issue to a lot of people. And I expect there is going to be more, and more thorough coverage, and without the pejorative descriptions Goldberg chooses.

I would be prone to agree with the assessment of Goldberg's use of negative descriptions and insults of network news. It is vitriolic, and it isn't necessary. The simple analysis of what is actually going on, from an insiders perspective, is daming without a singlepejorative phrase. For the rest, one simple has to watch the news and see how solid Goldberg's basic case is: that the network news is not fair and balanced coverage. It may be biased towards the orientation of an elitist clique. It may be biased towards money and ratings.

The one thing the mainstream television media cannot be accused of, however, is bias towards objective reportage.

There is absolutely no such thing as an "objective" story. Every writer has his or her biases and more importantly, frameworks with which he or she frames every story.

Indymedia is an example of bringing this to the fore: no story on Indymedia should be viewed as "objective", but at least the bias of many posters is clear - sometimes even stated up front. It's up to each individual to filter these stories from varying perspectives.

By contrast, the framework within which mainstream media stories are presented is very narrow. The most famous analysis of this is _Manufacturing Consent_ by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It also points out the overwhelmingly conservative bias of this framework - pro-US government, pro-corporate, supporting right-wing foreign governments and denigrating left-wing foreign governments.

Furthermore, an orientation toward an elitist clique or toward the upper-middle class portion of the audience is by its nature conservative.

Perhaps Goldberg feels that a "balanced" discussion of a flat-tax proposal should have had a flat-tax supporter on. So you have a couple Forbes supporters and four conservatives interviewed. That Goldberg could consider that "balanced" is an indication of his own extreme conservatism.

This very complaint of "liberal" bias in the media is itself addressed in _Manufacturing Consent_. That book is also valuable for a lot of recent history that few Americans are aware of because of a virtual blackout by American media.

The media leans to the left, HARD to the left. Of course, on this board, the left is the right. You got people on here who think Noam Chomsky is a right-wing fundamentalist. Your average liberal who supports the Dem party and voted for Gore is the left. Nader voters and people who think ole Noamy boy is a genius comprise the super-left. Those further to the left are in outer space.

Media leans "hard to the left". Please.

Media almost unquestioningly supports the government's propaganda. See the current "war" for examples. That is conservative.

As I mentioned before, "an orientation toward an elitist clique or toward the upper-middle class portion of the audience is by its nature conservative".

Irony indeed ...


you just characterized yourself ;)

you need to extract it .. stand up straight .. open your eyes ... turn around 180 .. take a good look ... and begin your education ;)

There are many people who are confident the media leans left. You trying to tell me that Rather and Brokaw voted for Bush or Reagan?? Me don't think so. While some may view the Dems and Repubs as both conservative, that's not where the vast majority of Americans draw the dividing line. Once again, if your part of the super-left, then your going to view the mainstream media as being pro corporate, thus pro conservative.

If the media isn't pro-left, why don' they do all they can to completely destroy the Dem Party? If the Repubs are going to offer more freedom for them to continue their evil corporate ways, then the best thing the media could do is offer the Dem party absolutely no voice. Or when they do comment, have a commentator totally undermine all they had to say. Tote the conservative line. Com'n, what are they waiting on. It could even be a subtle distraction. Next time Gephardt or Daschle are on, they could roll across the bottom of the screen "Tonights airing of 'Sex In The City" will be shown at 10:00PM".

As for nessie, he's way to the left. If making comments about asses and tonsils makes him feel more in touch with the citizens of San Francisco, that's his problem. I generally find that name calling is started by those losing the debate.

"Bias" will sell millions, and it will do so for one major reason. Many people in America have viewed and currently view mainstream media as being slanted to the left. They want to read about the particulars from someone who had to put up with the shit.

The range of conservative-liberal opinion within the Democratic Party and within the Republican Party is far greater than the difference between the two parties. This is why it is possible for politicians to switch parties fairly easily. Jeffords, while he became "Independent" as a gesture of tact, could have become a member of the Democratic Party.

To the extent that the news or news workers are liberal, they are to the left side of this very narrow political perspective that tends to strengthen corporate power.

The spectrum of political thought in our political representatives is fairly narrow and to the right. In other countries, particularly with parliamentary democracies, you see a much wider range of political representation, especially to the left.

Also, in the past 20 or so years, the Democratic party has become more conservative. Who signed welfare "reform" and pushed so-called free trade agreements? Clinton. For all his populist rhetoric, Clinton was a hell of a friend to big corporate interests.

Rather than haggle over where exactly left or right is, it seems we can agree on one thing: the mainstream (corporate) media is pro-corporate. Both parties are corporate parties, often taking money from the same companies. I call that conservative. You don't. Oh well.

The corporate media tends to be "liberal" on issues that capital cares little about. Think: abortion, gun control, gay rights etc. So long as these issues aren't framed in class terms the mainstream media dolts are allowed to take a seemingly "liberal" position. This is the basis of the "middle american" antipathy toward the "media elite" that demogogues on the right exploit.

Any close examination, however, would, I bet, find that many of these same "middle americans" are objectively to the left of the media on issues relating to corporate power, trade policy, taxes and all that. Millions of americans harbor real class hatred that none of the well-coiffed imbeciles of the media are ever allowed or inclined to articulate.

I assure you the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans do not distinguish the dividing line between conservative and liberal by using pro or anti corporations as the standard. The dividing line is this: liberals seek solutions through a large central government, conservatives seek solutions through the private sector. It really is that simple.

You know the Populist movement to which you aspire actually had a sizeable following in the 1880's and 1890's. In their attempt to reign in what they preceived in the country as being the control of wealth in too few hands (at that time the big beef was JP Morgan and friends setting banking policies), they banded together to get the Federal Gov't to oversee and regulate banking. Out of that was borne the Federal Reserve Bank. The last of the major Populist congressmen were voted out in the 1930's. By not recognizing the political landscape, they basically legislated into law what became their own demise. By not recognizing the landscape today, you risk the same.

to anon: I don't believe the mainstream media is conservative at all. But to this I will agree, and I believe you will too: Somewhere along the line, our elected representatives decided to quit doing what was best for the American people and started doing what was best for themselves.

But even if there were no corporations, even if every business was a Mom and Pop operation, even if all elections were government funded, I believe our elected representatives would being doing the same thing they're doing today: Looking out for themselves.

But I'm done on this subject.

This review fails to provide a well though out opinion of the book. Instead it suffers from the same intense “Bias” that it claims Bernard Goldberg is guilty. The book is compelling. The issues raised are most serious. Is Goldberg biased? A review that simply attempts to discredit the author would seem to support the general premise of the book: that serious journalism is dying. I’d really like to read a serious and thoughtful review of this book the critiques Goldberg’s arguments. Argument s for which, I believe, he has provided considerable support that cites the names of the reporters and executives, their publications/networks and the dates the stories ran. Bernard Goldberg may have indeed presented a Biased depiction of mainstream media but, if so, where is a serious, well researched, objective treatment of this most important issue? Regardless of ones position, this is not a small book in any respect. It strikes at the foundation of our nation’s media institutions and it is a national best seller. It should be one of the most debated issues of the day. I heard on NPR last week that ABC, NBC and CBS refuse to even acknowledge the books existence. How can this be? Regardless of their view of the book it is NY times Best Seller. It is a one of the most talked about books of the day by the millions that have read the book and in some less mainstream media. The book challenges mainstream media’s very right to enter our living rooms each day. Yet rather than address the issue as serious journalist’s they seem to be executing a very common “damage control” strategy…ignore it and it will eventually go away. Again this is not a demonstration of the serious journalism we expect and should demand. Raqnal and Hart’s review employs the classic. Attack the messager not the message tacit an din doing so acts to give further credence to Goldberg’s claims. If this book is as biased as Steve Randall and Peter Hart suggest, then why not address it seriously and put the book into it’s proper perspective?

I found Randall and Hart’s criticisms to be paper-thin and example of irresponsible journalism on each of the following points:

Hart and Randall: “A single segment featuring mostly right-of-center sources criticizing one Republican's tax proposal is hardly smoking-gun evidence of a left-wing media tilt. Yet five years later the CBS flat-tax report is still Goldberg's "Exhibit A," the main evidence of liberal bias in his skimpy book.”

Commentary: I think this a gross mischaracterization and this statement alone seriously damages each reporter’s objectivity and credibility on the issue. Why? Well, anyone who read the book knows that Goldberg begins the book by recounting his story central to which is the editorial he wrote in the WSJ in 1996 that criticized the CBS story referenced by Randall and Hart as “Exhibit A.” The “five years” that have elapsed should in no way be used to devalue the “Exhibit” or be used to argue that the book lacks substance. Exhibit A is simply the pivotal event in Bernard Goldberg’s personal career that triggered the systematic, as he explains it, end to a 26-year, award winning career. Goldberg’s retelling of this story is central to his story and his thesis. The book is not confined to this five year old example…please don’t insult us!

Randal and Hart: Goldberg marshals little documentation for his claim that the news is packed with the views of liberal advocacy groups and rarely includes conservative opinions. In reality, year after year, right-leaning think tanks are cited in far more broadcast and print reports than either centrist or left-leaning think tanks. A survey by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting of Nightline's guest list found that for every representative of a labor union invited to debate economic issues, there were seven representatives of corporations.

Commentary: What does this statistic mean? What was the context of this survey? Who is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting? How about some background to support their credibility? As I’ve argued, we need serious investigative journalism to be conducted on this issue. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, the survey results cited here could not be more vague. As a dedicated viewer of nightline my first though was, yes they do have CEO’s on quite often to discuss a host of business and economic issues. Most of these issues have nothing to do with labor. Why would a statistic that independently compares the frequency of representatives from corporations to labor union representatives provide any insight into objectivity or the lack there of? Face it, our economy and the corporations that innovate and drive its growth often comprise some of the most interesting news of the day. Our economy is one of the broadest topics I can think of and therefore it reasonable that influential representatives from corporate America would often be featured. Labor relations, while very important, simply do not provide as many newsworthy opportunities. This is common sense. Labor Union leaders are featured when labor issues, i.e. strikes, pending legislation that impacts labor issues etc. On the other side corporate America can support CNBC, a network dedicated solely to the coverage of world markets with a primary focus on US markets, the corporations that it is comprised of that the corporate leaders that drive it. Randal and Hart again seem to fall into the category of journalist that Goldberg exposes in his book.


Randal and Hart: If, as Goldberg argues, there's a media tilt toward Democrats, then why have Republicans received a majority of newspaper endorsements in all but two presidential elections since 1932?

Commentary: You are journalist attacking a book that challenges journalist integrity. Please have the good sense to cite your sources! Please have the good sense to define the universe that was used in obtaining this sweeping statistic that covers a 70-year time span! 70-years? Are you kidding me (I’m laughing). Are we to believe that the Democratic and Republican parties have not changed over the last 70 years! Are we to believe that the media has not changed over the last 70 years! Do either Randal or Hart have any sense of history or politics? Do they care? More to point, Goldberg’s book very clearly focuses on what he perceives to be a very disturbing trend in the media business over the last 20 years…not 70. Big difference...different world all together and certainly a completely different argument. What book did Randall and Hart read? In making his argument Goldberg does cite compelling facts regarding the NY times record of political endorsements during that time period… all democratic. Of course this is not shocking to anyone that reads the Times or follows politics. Also central to his arguments is that the NY times is the most influential source of news in America…the opinions of which the major news networks follow religiously. Goldberg’s belief of the influence of the NY times is hardly controversial. But even so, please address the issues responsibly. If you disagree with Goldberg’s arguments at least define them accurately and provide well researched arguments that support your view. This is hack journalism if I’ve ever seen it.


Randall and Hart: Goldberg left CBS four years ago after accusing his colleagues of bias in a 1996 Wall Street Journal column. The piece focused on a CBS Evening News segment scrutinizing a flat-tax proposal made by Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes. The story was one-sided, giving no time to flat-tax supporters, but was it really proof of liberal bias?
Consider the four flat-tax critics featured in the segment: House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an adviser to the senior President Bush, a former Nixon era IRS commissioner, and a tax expert.

Commentary: Gee wiz, the Republicans were against the flat tax also? No kidding. Thanks for that investigative journalism. The issue Goldberg raised was whether or not the issue of the flat tax was researched and presented in its entirety. Or in other words, were all educated, respected and important views on the issue presented. The answer was clearly no. He cites three Nobel Prize winning economists that support the concept of a flat tax system; Milton Friedman was among them. He went on to cite several other noted economists that had made their support of a flat tax system know. This side of the argument was conveniently not presented. That was the issue here. Please, once again be responsible and deal with the issue instead of attempting to spin it like a two-bit politician. And on that note, anyone who was breathing during that election campaign knows that virtually all politicians (and all of the presidential candidates except of course Forbes) were against the flat tax. Why? Well maybe it’s a flawed concept? Maybe it won’t work. Or maybe its for the same the same reason they are against campaign finance reform… because its not in the best interest of politicians. When to Democrats and Republicans uniformly agree on anything? Could it be that if Congress lost it’s freedom to levy taxes as they see fit then they would also loose their ability provide pork belly programs and tax legislation that benefits their constituents that keep them in power. I’m not an economist and I really do not know whether or not a flat tax is a good idea but I do know that expect the media to present all legitimate sides on the issue. Noble Prize winners offer legitimate opinions on complicated economic issues such revising tax systems, wouldn’t you agree? I know what to expect from Gingrich on the issue…thanks.

Randall and Hart: The only claim Goldberg makes that has real documentation behind it is about the elite mentality of big-time journalists, but it's a charge that undermines the case for liberal bias. A 1998 FAIR survey of the opinions of the Washington press corps found that journalists were more conservative - not more liberal - than the general public on major economic issues such as trade, taxes, Social Security, health care and corporate power…Here's a reality check for Bernard Goldberg: The mainstream media are no more liberal than the conglomerates that own them or the advertisers that pay their bills.

Commentary: I’m not sure where to start with this one. I guess I’ll take it from the top. “The only claim that has real documentation”…again, what book did they read. The reason Goldberg’s book is so compelling is that he cites real stories that ran in print and broadcast through out the book to support his arguments. Each story cited contains the name the reporter, their publication or network and the date it story ran. He also provides research that documents the degree of coverage the issues in question received categorized by their bias. The book probably would not have been published with out such documentation or if it had been Goldberg would have left himself wide open to libel law suits. Without the documentation that Goldberg provides the book certainly would not have become a NY times best seller. It would not have received powerful reviews that supported Goldberg’s thesis by the NY times, The Wall Street Journal, US News and World Report and other leading publications. Who are these guys Randall and Hart? How can their review be so one sided? More importantly, as I believe I have pointed out, how can their review be so shoddy on a subject that addresses the very subject shoddy journalism? A point I will end my criticism upon…the force of the book addresses the lack of objectivity and integrity in mainstream journalism. Anyone that read it knows this. That is the issue to be debated not whether or not Goldberg was a closet right-winger for 26 years and therefor has no credibility. This is not a political issue and should not be made one. If it is turned into a political issue then we can only expect that it will be dealt with in a like manner… through spin and strategic damage control. Randal and Hart’s biased attack of a book entitled Bias is certainly rich irony and makes Goldberg’s assertions that much more intriguing. Nice work guys.

That was an excellent critique of the review. Thanks.

Ridge here. Goldberg is correct. The press is too liberal. The press is way more liberal than the American people. After all, it's not like the majority of people in the last election voted for Gore and Nader......

Oh, wait a minute. They did! 52% voted for Gore and Nader. That must mean there is a center-left majority in this country! Oh, no....

OMIGOD, I'm on the wrong side!!! Bush is totally illegitimate! His war on terrorism is a fraud! This country is turning into a police state! I've got to get the word out! My whole life is a lie!....

Just kidding. Ha ha. I had you anarchists there for a second, didn't I? Boy, do I crack myself up.

Oh, briggs, could you have that snitch report on my desk first thing tomorrow? Thanks for all your help! The check is in the mail!

Looks like Mr. Rendell and Mr. Hart have a hard time accepting that Goldberg hit the target with Bias. You know if Rush Limbaugh (or any other conservative) would have written this book, I wouldn't have to write this because Rendell and Hart wouldn't have even given Bias a look and never would have written the column. If everyone (and I mean everyone) knew that Bias was so off-base, then why would Rendell and Hart even have to respond like this? Why would they even care? Everybody knows that the media is slanted to the left, there is no question about that. They are giving the same reaction that Golberg describes in Bias of the journalist who said "how could Nixon have won, I don't know anybody that voted for him. Nixon carried 49 of 50 states." Rendell and Hart's reactions go right to the heart of what Goldberg is talking about, and that is the media reaction to any media that isn't "like theirs", that isn't "liberal." Denial ain't no river in Egypt.

Looks like Mr. Rendell and Mr. Hart have a hard time accepting that Goldberg hit the target with Bias. You know if Rush Limbaugh (or any other conservative) would have written this book, I wouldn't have to write this because Rendell and Hart wouldn't have even given Bias a look and never would have written the column. If everyone (and I mean everyone) knew that Bias was so off-base, then why would Rendell and Hart even have to respond like this? Why would they even care? Everybody knows that the media is slanted to the left, there is no question about that. They are giving the same reaction that Golberg describes in Bias of the journalist who said "how could Nixon have won, I don't know anybody that voted for him. Nixon carried 49 of 50 states." Rendell and Hart's reactions go right to the heart of what Goldberg is talking about, and that is the media reaction to any media that isn't "like theirs", that isn't "liberal." Denial ain't no river in Egypt.

The media is slanted to the left?? do you smoke crack? What is Dan Rather, a leftist?

Here's one factoid for you, you idiot: THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE-53%-VOTED FOR GORE OR NADER. That is, they voted AGAINST Bush. On every major issue-guns, abortion, the environment-the public supports the less conservative position. It's only GOP spin ("compassionate conservatism," ad naseum) aided by the media, that obscures this fact.

IF IT WASN'T FOR THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA, THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE THROWN BUSH OUT LONG AGO. You conservatives should have more respect for the institutions that help you maintain your illegitimate rule.

FACE IT: MOST PEOPLE HATE YOU, AND WOULD THROW YOU OUT ONTO THE STREETS IF THEY FOUND OUT WHAT YOU REALLY STAND FOR!!!

There's your "liberal" bias for you, you stupid @#$%! moron!!!

"I generally find that name calling is started by those losing the debate. " - brigg

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/01/114525.php#117008

<A series of ad hominem attacks on nessie.> - brigg
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/01/114525.php#117071

I don't like nessie's aggressive "if you think X, you're an idiot" and "if you believe Y, then you're my enemy. Fuck off and die" style of pontificating. But to criticize him for name-calling and then do so yourself is quite hypocritical.

In 1997, the Ministry of Education in the Republic of China announced its approval for setting up a public run university in the city of Kaohsiung, and an office for its preparation was then established. After a wide range of discussions with local academia and entrepreneurs for development of this establishment, a complete set-up plan for the university was completed. Having recognized the essential implications for other disciplines of the mathematics, the Department of Applied Mathematics was named on the ''priority list'' that are to be established in year 2000.

After its three-year preparation, the National University of Kaohsiung began to function as planned in 2000, and had accepted undergraduate students in six departments including applied mathematics. The Department of Applied Mathematics also plans to start the graduate program in year 2003.

Currently, there are five faculty members in the Department of Applied Mathematics, National University of Kaohsiung. All have excellent research track record, remarkable teaching experiences and are invited from other renowned institutions in Taiwan. Further, a few more distinguished scholars in Applied Mathematics are to be invited to join the department in the near future. The recruitment will be based on research, teaching and academic services. It is expected that each faculty member has enthusiasm in teaching, is devoted to conduct quality research and is prepared to provide academic services for higher education. The objectives are to pursue excellence in research, to make the department a prestigious institution and to foster successful alumni in every field.

¡@

II. General Goals

The Department of Applied Mathematics will devote to the development of three major schemes in the studies of Mathematics. These include: Probability and Statistics, Discrete Mathematics and Scientific Computing. With emphasis in these three fields, the Department of Applied Mathematics will be able to have close cooperation with other departments in National University of Kaohsiung, and provide academic service to the need of the society. After having acquired the skills in basic mathematics theories and techniques, students may choose one of the three curricula as the major direction for their studies. In all three curricula, students will learn to do computer programming, and to be skillful in frequently used mathematics and statistics software, so that they are equipped with the indispensable research tools. For senior students, the department will encourage them to take part in the research projects together with faculty members or applied projects from other resources, so that they can have a deeper understanding of theories and the first hand experience in working on real world problems.

1. Probability and Statistics

Probability and statistics theory and methods are indispensable in scientific studies. The department not only emphasizes the theoretical aspect of probability and statistics, but also on its applications, especially in the areas of mathematics and statistics finance, industrial statistics, statistical methods related to information sciences including statistical computing, as well as bio-statistics including those related to medical studies. Joint cooperation with other departments in the National University of Kaohsiung such as electrical engineering, applied economic, life sciences as well as with research hospitals in Kaohsiung area will be encouraged.

2. Discrete Mathematics

Discrete mathematics is one of the fundamentals for studying computer science and technology. Following the rapid development of computer related studies, discrete mathematics has become one of the most active fields in mathematics. Its application range from computer sciences to other areas including chemistry, biology, economics and management. The fast paced technology advancement has also made this area a very promising field in the future.

3. Scientific Computing

As the computing facilities become increasingly powerful, many experiments can be done through computer simulations. Many theoretical findings need good scientific computing methods and algorithms to be really applicable. Numerical analysis, computational methods, and logic computing as well as its applications in engineering, biology or chemistry etc. will be enhanced in this program.

¡@

III. Curriculum

Undergraduate Degree Program

The Department of Applied Mathematics confers the degree of Bachelor of Science in Applied Mathematics. Usually it takes four years to complete a minimal of 128 credits.

The department will offer basic mathematics courses and equipped students with solid basic mathematical training. Mathematical literacy courses will also be offered to broaden students general knowledge in mathematics. The compulsory courses are maintained at the minimum level for sufficient training in mathematics so as to leave more rooms for students to select courses from one of the three curricula established in the department as the major direction of their future studies. On the other hand, the department will also seek to establish joint programs with other departments, e.g., mathematical finance with the departments in school of economics and management, aiming to train persons with ability to do work in mathematical finance, bio-informatics with the departments in school of life sciences to bring up persons trained in suitable curriculum for work biological technology industry of the 21st century. Other than the basic courses in mathematics, computer programming, usage of mathematics and statistics software useful in doing applied research work will also be emphasized. The department also encourages students to take certain courses in a chosen field in other departments such as that related to physics, biology, economics, and electrical engineering, to build up understandings in other area, so that they may cooperate with people in other fields and apply the mathematics theories learned.

¡@

Compulsory Courses

Topic
¡@
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior

Credit
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd

Calculus¡]I¡^
4
4
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Linear Algebra¡]I¡^
3
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Fundamental of Mathematics¡]I¡^
3
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Introduction to Computer Science¡]I¡^
3
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Concepts of Mathematics¡]I¡^
1
1
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Calculus¡]II¡^
4
¡@
4
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Linear Algebra¡]II¡^
3
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Concepts of Mathematics¡]II¡^
1
¡@
1
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Advanced Calculus¡]II¡^
4
¡@
¡@
4
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Differential Equations
3
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Probability and Statistics¡]I¡^
3
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Advanced Calculus¡]II¡^
4
¡@
¡@
¡@
4
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Probability and Statistics¡]II¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Algebra¡]I¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Numerical Analysis¡]I¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@

Discrete Mathematics¡]I¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@


¡@

Optional Courses

Topic
¡@
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior

Credit
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd

Introduction to Logic
2
2
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Fundamental of Mathematics¡]II¡^
3
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Introduction to Computer Science¡]II¡^
3
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

An Appreciation of Mathematics
2
¡@
2
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Data Structures
3
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Introduction to Number Theory
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@

Algebra¡]II¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@

Complex Analysis¡]I¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@

Probability Theory¡]I¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@
¡@

Probability Theory¡]II¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@

Numerical Analysis¡]II¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@

Discrete Mathematics¡]II¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@

Complex Analysis¡]II¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@

Algorithm
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@
¡@

Partial Differential Equations
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@

Real Analysis¡]I¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@

Mathematical Statistics¡]I¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@

Stochastic Thinking
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@

Statistical Methods
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@

Probability Theory¡]III¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@

Graph Theory
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3
¡@

Mathematical Statistics¡]II¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3

Real Analysis¡]II¡^
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3

Geometry
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3

Stochastic Processes
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3

Advanced Linear Algebra
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3

Methods for Applied Mathematics
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3

Multimedia System
3
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
¡@
3


¡@

IV. Faculty

Full-time

Name
Academic Background
Research Interests
Phone Numbers

and E-mail

Wen-Jang Huang

Professor and

Chairman
B.S. in Mathematics, National Taiwan University,1976 Ph.D.in Statistics, Purdue University, 1983
Probability Theory Statistics

Mathematics Education
886-7-5919169

886-7-5919343

huangwj [at] nuk.edu.tw

Yuh-Jia Lee

Professor and Dean of the Student Affairs Department
B.S. in Mathematics, National Cheng-Kung University, 1971 M.S. in Mathematics, National Tsing-Hua University,1973 Ph.D. in Mathematics, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1979
Probability Theory

Functional Analysis Differential Equations
886-7-5919170

886-7-5919050

yjlee [at] nuk.edu.tw

Hong-Gwa Yeh

Assistant Professor
B.S. in Mathematics, National Cheng-Kung University, 1989 M.S. in Mathematics, National Sun Yet-sen University, 1991 Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics, National Chiao Tung University,1997
Discrete Mathematics Applied Probability

Computer Science
886-7-5919168

hgyeh [at] nuk.edu.tw

Ching-Tang Wu

Assistant Professor
B.S. in Mathematics, National Tsing Hua University, 1991 M.S. in Mathematics, National Tsing Hua University, 1993 Ph.D. in Mathematics, Humboldt University, Berlin, 1999 Post-doctor, Institute of Financial and Actuarial Mathematics, Vienna University

of Technology
Fourier Analysis,

Probability Theory, Stochastic Analysis, Financial Mathematics
¡@

Chien-Hui Chiou

Research Assistant
B.S. in Mathematics, Tamkang

University, 1983
Mathematics Education
886-7-5919345

chiouch [at] nuk.edu.tw


¡@

Part-time

Name
Academic Background
Research Interests

Jia-Wen Chen Professor
B.S. in Mathematics, Fu Jen Catholic University, 1986M.S. in Mathematics, Fu Jen Catholic University, 1988 Ph.D. in Mathematics, National Tsing Hua University, 1992 Professor, Department of Applied Mathematics, I-Shou University
Optimization Analysis

Young-Ye Huang Professor
B.S. in Mathematics, National Cheng Kung University, 1972M.S. in Mathematics, National Taiwan University, 1974Ph.D. in Mathematics, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1988Professor, Department of Mathematics, National Cheng Kung University
Functional Analysis

Harmonic Analysis

Chi-Kun Lin Professor
B. S. in Mathematics, National Cheng Kung University, 1983 M.S. in Mathematics, National Taiwan University, 1986 Ph.D. in Mathematics, University of Arizona, 1992 Professor, Department of Mathematics, National Cheng Kung University
Partial Differential Equations

Fluid Mechanics Nonlinear Analysis

Cheng-Feng Hu Associate Professor
B.S. in Mathematics, National Tsing Hua University, 1993 M.S. in Operations Research, North Carolina State University, 1995 Ph.D. in Operations Research, North Carolina State University, 1997 Associate Professor, Department of Applied Mathematics, I-Shou University
Optimization Mathematical Programming Operations Research Fuzzy Theory

Chin-Te Chu Assistant Professor
B.S. in Applied Mathematics, National Chiao Tung University, 1988 M.S. in Mathematics, Louisiana State University, 1997 Ph.D. in Mathematics, Louisiana State University, 2000
Harmonic AnalysisFunctional Analysis


¡@

I think an aggressive and hostile tone is counter-productive. The whole point of public discourse, especially explicitly political discourse, is to share perspectives, change others' minds, and even change our own.

Calling other people idiots or telling them to "fuck off and die" not only pollutes the atmosphere for casual readers and writers, but will absolutely not reach those who agree with the "idiot".

Challenge the views, not the person who holds them. Instead of "fuck off and die", how about "I think you're making a grave mistake, and here's why". Because I'm sure you realize that people are not going to take your advice to fuck off and die. And your whole "we are at war" rhetoric sounds just a little too fucking close to mainstream propaganda now. I don't think we need more macho attitudes.

People change. I was only radicalized in the last year. One of the things that has turned me off from leftist writings for years is a common habit to say "Amerika" or even "Amerikkka". I understand where that's coming from, and agree that it's justified, but it is VERY ineffective. If when I first started browsing Indymedia I had come across you calling me and others like me an idiot or an enemy, I most likely would have turned my back and found less hostile forums. Perhaps I wouldn't be pursuing any activism at all. You'd be at least one person farther away from a revolution.

Burning American flags in public: justified, yes, effective, no. Nessie calling people idiots and enemies: it might be true and justified, but it is not effective.

"Real life" is dominated by loudmouth, opinionated, aggressive, and competitive white men who alienate others without even trying. So why should I come to this piece of the counter-culture if it's just going to be the same damn thing?

Just stopped by to see how things are here these days, glad to see things haven't changed.

Nessie is still demonstrating his desparation and hipocracy through familar means: name calling when directed at him is 'ad hominem attack:' the biggest sin in Nessie's debating koran. Yet when it's him doing the name calling or telling people to "fuck off and die" or in my case telling me he'll "fuck {me} up," it's "giving him the soundest advice I can muster."

There is nothing more pathetic than somone of Nessie's advanced age playing these puerile games. Keep it up Nessie, you are and always have been your own greatest detractor.

I'm in total agreement w/ you Diego. He can dish it out (at least on an elementary school level) but he can't take it.

I laughed my ass off when Brigg compared him to Don Quixote. What a perfect parallel!! Nessie, trying in a chivalrous but unrealistic way to rescue the oppressed and fight evil. But in his case, I'm confident the windmills will win.

just stopped by to see that Diego and TJ are still congratulating themselves on their brilliant contributions to the war effort by trashing this nessie fellow. uuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, you hostess twinkies scare me! ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you're tougher than two cream puffs with jelly inside! why don't you go to kabul if you're so fired up with love of war. Pthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Thanks for contributing such as scintillating piece of non-sequitur dribble. Intellectual giants like yourself are well on your way to winning your fight with such an envious command of the language.

You deface yourselves as (usual) and I look forward to more of the same. Keep up the good work!

One of the network newscasts, I can't remember which, was doing a story about campaign ads during the Bush-Gore race. During the piece they showed a brief clip from each of the candidates ads. The Gore clip was a few seconds of Gore driving home his point. In other words, the clip made the same point as the whole ad. The Bush clip was from somewhere in the middle of the ad that may not have even included a full sentence. You had no idea what Bush was talking about, or what the ad was about.

It was sublte and obvious at the same time. Whoever put the story together chose what he wanted to show. He showed Gore making his point, and Bush in mid-sentence. Basically, it was a free run of Gore's ad.

Stuff like this is all over the place. When some survey looks at this example it would show up as a "fair & balanced" story. It was just about campaign ads, and it talked about both candidates. But if you were to watch it for yourself, you could see the obvious slant.

Conservative commentators on cable:

Bill O'Reilly
Hammity whatever
Alan Keyes
Chris Matthews
Brit Hume
Almost every other Fox anchor

Centrist commentators on cable:

Bill Press
Carville
Belaga
Al Hunt
Mark Shields

Liberal commentators on cable:

None (the above centrists do not count as "liberal")

Confession: I couldn't sit through Brian's whole screed. What I did read sounded like a critique of critiques of critiques.

This post mainly concerns the weather. I suppose conservatives see bias in the weather whenever something like global warming comes up. Global warming is a liberal idea, in this view, not a reality. El Nino's coming back this year, and the effect's been tied to melting ice caps, which may be tied to smokestack civilization's dire influence. Which makes a war for oil seem very stupid and backwards, which makes belief in global warming "liberal," so to speak. Just a thought.

And another thing. . . strong attacks on a person's character via online forum say a lot more about the attacker than about the attacked. You should do that kind of thing to people's faces . . . kind of, you know, keep it real.

regards

the jokersmoker

The more you guys talk, the more you prove Mr. Goldberg's point: Bias is alive and well in our media. You guys are completely out of touch with people living in the real world. Chris Payne

Excellent piece in response to this (both the same article):

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/03/119275.php
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-06.htm

Bernard Goldberg's book, Bias, does not contain the rants of a right-wing conspirator as many critics have suggested, but rather the measured admonitions of a self-admitted liberal insider. Even conservative journalists can learn something from the hypothesis that media bias distorts news coverage. Analysts can go back and forth over the issue, but there's enough evidence to at least hang the jury still out on the media's bias.

What conservatives and liberals have to realize, regardless of who's right and who's wrong, is that many of Goldberg's examples chide media elites for something they cannot control, something most Americans would have difficulty controlling, and that is an unconscious adherence to ingrained political ideologies. Most people grow up in a contained environment that helps skew their worldview either conservatively or liberally. Parents, relatives, neighbors, teachers, friends--very few people have a single original thought in their head because everything we know is learned from these people. And this goes for conservatives as well as liberals.

As an aspiring journalist, I had always heard about the liberal bias, but never seen it in action, but Goldberg's book clued me in to the oblivious error of the mainstream media. The media seems liberal because it castigates conservative issues and leaders, while holding the views of liberal politicians and lobbyists as dogmatic. This is simply the product of growing up liberal, and is not something we should fault journalists for. The son of a poor, liberal schoolteacher is probably more likely to vote Democrat and pursue a career in journalism, then the son of a rich, conservative oil magnate who will most likely vote Republican and inherit the family fortune. If more conservatives became journalists then there would be more balanced coverage. Beyond that there isn't much we can do.

no message

are minuscule and irrelevant.

Both support capitalism, both support nationalism, both support classism, both support nationalism, both suck. A pox on both their houses.

On a similar issue...

"It turns out we were the most ethical administration in history," erstwhile Clinton operative and now "Crossfire" co-host Paul Begala tells Buzzflash.com. "I think Bill Clinton defenders and Clinton lovers ought to be proud that, in fact, we did have the most ethical administration."

We suppose that depends what he means by ethical. And by lovers.


http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/03/29_Paul_Begala.html

Why is this review not suprising? Having left wing flaming liberals give this book a review is like having Hillary Clinton writing a book review on Charlton Heston's autobiography! Come on guys don't insult our intelligence!

the corporate media is liberal. let's take that at face value. What do these putative liberals believe? Let's take Thomas Friedman, former long-time Mid East corresondent and now editorialist for the New York Times. He believes:
-- that capitalist globalization is a progressive force and all of its opponents are self-seeking, myopic reactionaries.
-- that all of America's military expeditions of the past dozen years were to be aggressively supported
-- that Israel's present massive assault on Palestinean lands are to supported, but -- and here he distinguishes himself from our erst-while conservatives -- that some sort of pathetic little bantustan Palestinean statelet should be hammered out some time in the not-too-distant future.

that's what liberal Friedman believes and it's essentially what the mainstream corpo-liberal media believe. anything to the left of this is not part of the debate.

so brigg and the rest are right: the media is liberal

"anything to the left of this is not part of the debate."

it shouldn't be. anything to the left of that is pure foolishness. the debate should only be among those who are informed, not those who have their own personal agenda. their are so few to the left of the positions you stated, their voices are not worth listening to. the line must be drawn somewhere. cry and scream you're being marginalized. your numbers are small and continue to stay that way. you are insignificant to the debate. that's why no one is listening.

Trevor claims that anything to the left of Thomas Friedman is "pure foolishness", that any such proponents are a priori uninformed, that they have a "personal agenda", and furthermore, they are few and marginalized.

In short, he argues that these voices deserve to be marginalized because they're marginalized. He has no evidence that the views are rare - except, perhaps, that they don't appear in mass media. Thus, once again, the criterion of inclusion in corporate media is that the views are already included in corporate media.

The idea of a sovereign Palestinian state and the end of Israeli settlements and occupation appears to most outside Israel (and particularly in Europe) as reasonable, and hardly "foolish" or uninformed. This is not a particularly radical idea, yet gets short thrift in American mass media.

Also, Noam Chomsky, for example, has written extensively on the Middle East and has followed the situation in the Middle East for sixty years. He can hardly be called "uninformed", yet his insightful writing is not welcome on the New York Times' pages.

"In short, he argues that these voices deserve to be marginalized because they're marginalized."

I agree. Why are they marginalized? There aren't enough of you. You want evidence? If there were enough of you, the ballot box would be your evidence. If there were enough of you, a paper which voices your political viewpoints with distribution like USA Today would be on every corner. Somebody would be trying to cash in, whether they actually believed what they were printing or not. Nader got 10X fewer votes than Ross Perot. Don't try and convince me there are a lot of you. If and until your numbers grow, you remain a very small market.

Newspapers want basically "mainstream" writers. The NYT is considered to be a "liberal" newpaper, the New York Post more "conservative." the Washington Post is considered "liberal", the Washington Post "conservative". Chomsky is considered by most as far-left.

As other writes have mentioned, the average American does not distinguish left and right as corporate media vs. independent media, or corporate america vs. democracy. The average American sees left and right in issues like abortion, affirmative action, taxes, social programs, etc. The left is Ted Kennedy. The right is Jesse Helms. You see them both as pro-corporate, thus right wing. Your vision of left and right is flawed because you don't define the center where everyone else does. When the country considers Clinton liberal and Bush conservative, and then you consider them both to be right-wing, when you talk in terms of Clinton being right wing you confuse people. Your prespective is not the same. You must speak from the center that most of America has defined as the center or you message will be fuzzy.

"Newspapers want basically "mainstream" writers."
You nailed it right there.

Nader's vote-count -- not that it is relevant to the discussion of media bias -- is hardly a precise indicator of the political views or inclinations of people in America. Approximately half of the eligible electorate didn't bother to vote, either out of indifference or a belief that it's all a big fraud -- or both. I, for instance, didn't vote for Nader (or anyone else for that matter), while my parents voted for Gore because they thought he was electable although they are in far closer agreement with Nader on the major issues. Indeed, if an on-the-street poll was taken that tallied the gut impulses of every American, Trevor would be surprised how well Nader would do against George Bush.

But this all really a diversion on Trevor's part. The point isn't that the media should reflect the pre-existing views of people, but instead that it should convey the "news" with accuracy, intelligence, and fairness. Media bias isn't simply about spouting the corporate and government line (although that is a lot of what it's about), it's also about emphasis, how certain stories are conveyed with urgency (big headlines and front-page coverage) and others are consigned to page 19.

When stated enemies of the US commit heinous acts these are given endless coverage and are treated as being systemic, while heinous actions of the US are treated as anomolous and often hardly reported or reported without urgency.

This is illustrated by the fact that most Americans know about Milosevic's crimes and their implications (or believe they do) while Turkey's slaughter of the Kurds in the 90s -- which wreaked and continues to wreak far more carnage, with US military support -- is known by very few. There are so many examples of this.

One last thought: could Trevor please tell us readers about US policy in Guatamala in the past fifty years, and describe its results. Me doubts he can. Why can't he?

While I realize that for certain people their bias is so entrenched they simply cannot, and will not ever, be able to see it, some things can certainly be addressed.

Anecdotes are certainly useful, but hardly good refutation on the whole. That you can find one person at the New York Times, perhaps an old-school liberal, who supported the Gulf War and supports Israel is more of an interesting artifact, cited by itself, than any kind of proof that Goldberg's assertion was wrong.

Examples the characterize Bill O'Rielly as right-wing and James Carville and Paul Begala as centrists cannot be taken seriously. Certainly, they are not meaningful because there is no yardstick by which the determination of the degree of their political slant is made. That is, I would be more prone to characterize O'Rielly as center-right and Carville and Begala as far left--although, perhaps to the right of Lenin and Marx. A little bit.

So, either each opposing viewpoint would have to determine where those that fall on their side of the fence are in terms of bias, or each opposing viewpoint would have to determine where those that fall on the other side are, in terms of political or ideological bias. So, either Carville and O'Rielly are both political centrists, or Carville is leaning hard left and O'Rielly is leaning hard right. But if you wouldn't take the characterization of Carville as a left-wing liberal and O'Rielly as a moderate seriously, you shouldn't expect anyone to take the characterization of O'Rielly and "anyone on Fox" as right-wingers, while James Carville and Paul Begala are moderate centrists, seriously. Unless, of course, establishing some sort of objective basis for comparison has no revelance to the argument, for you.

Finally, some mention is made of more refutation of the nutty claim that there is some sort of liberal bias in the media, and that a linguist (note, no affiliation, political or ideological, is made, yet if it had been Brent Bozelle, or Bill O'Rielly, do we think we might have heard something about his political credentials?) named Geoff Nunberg disproved the ridiculous assertion that conservatives were named and liberals were not, by and large, via an exhaustive Nexis research where (unsurprisingly) the details of what and when is not given.

That would be, as you might recall, "The Liberal Media - Poltergeist That Will Not Die:"

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/03/119275.php

Two main problems. First, the contention that Goldberg makes his points without statistical backup--it's just not so, and one suspects that the goal of the writer is to make it seem true by repitition. Yet, in most cases, the data is backed up, and specifically referenced. I would assume the person reviewing the book must have read it, and so much know that what they are saying is not correct. Which would seem to substantiate the concept of bias, not disprove it. Except, insomuch as they are preaching to the choir, most readers of the article will be predisposed to agree.

Secondly, is the claim that Goldberg is wrong about how frequently liberals are identified versus conservatives.

From The Media Research Center:

Here's a little list of some of the multi-year labeling percentages found in newspaper coverage. On the environment, newspaper stories on the Competitive Enterprise Institute included a conservative label in 28 percent of its 29 newspaper stories, compared to zero percent for Greenpeace (in 178 stories) and less than one percent for the Sierra Club (in 325 stories). In stories on retirement, they hunted for a lonely liberal label for AARP (zero percent) and Families USA (one percent). 

On the social issues, the reporters really get in a labeling - or warning -- mood, if you look at stories featuring conservative groups like Eagle Forum (75 percent), Concerned Women for America (71 percent), or the Family Research Council (63 percent). The exception is the National Right to Life Committee (6 percent). But try now their counterparts: NOW (2 percent), NARAL (5 percent), the Feminist Majority Foundation (2.6 percent), or Planned Parenthood (2.2 percent). If you're interested in the gay left, look at coverage of the Human Rights Campaign (1.3 percent), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (2.8 percent), or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (zero labeling "defamation" there).

These studies were meticulous work. MRC analysts sat for weeks with enormous stacks of Nexis database printouts, reading page after page and checking each news story and label in context, weeding out all non-news examples, like opinion pieces. If "conservative" was used to describe a suit instead of a group, it didn't count.

By contrast, Nunberg did a "study" of ten legislators covered by 30 newspapers and found that "the average liberal legislator has a better than 30 percent greater likelihood of being given a political label than the average conservative does." CNN's Jeff Greenfield just put that number on the air, but didn't note Nunberg found liberal politicians were tagged in 4.8 percent of stories to conservatives' 3.6 percent. There's your 30 percent. Big, big deal.

Nunberg merely threw in his magic words - "Barbara Boxer" within seven words of "liberal" -- and accepted the numbers his Dialog database spat out. He claims that out of thousands of stories in 30 newspapers, he "examined 100 citations by hand" -- a tiny fraction of the mountain of content he's claiming. But don't worry, he says, those 100 citations showed only 12 percent of his citations turned out to be mistakes.

You wouldn't want to try this method out at a meat inspection, and it's not a very convincing media inspection technique, either. Please ignore the man behind the TV screen telling you he's really the wizard of conservative media bias.
----------------------
Best,
Kevin S. Willis

As I recall, James Carville was a flack for Clinton. When he was flacking for Clinton he promoted Clinton's views, correct? What were Clinton's views?

-- pro death penalty
-- pro NAFTA, GATT etc
-- pro welfare cuts
-- pro bombing Iraq, Yugoslavia, Sudan etc
-- pro deregulation of telecom

What meaning is there in referring to someone flacking for these policies a leftist? Mr. Willis asks for objective criteria but then proceeds to invoke his own myopic standard in which James Carville and Bill O' Reilly are equi-distant from the center. His argument is stupidly circular.

I took another quick look at Mr. Willis' Carville-O'Reilly example and realize that I can't make out what the hell he's saying. Is it that a standard that places the two of them equi-distant from the center is good or does he think that Carville is a far leftist (ha ha) and O' Reilly is a right-centrist?

Only an American could think such a thing.

I no longer watch mainstream news media on the networks simply for the facts that are clearly presented in Goldberg's book. On cited example that struck me because I remember analyzing the situation, myself, the same way was his observance of Peter Jenning's play-by-play of the "Clinton Impeachment oath book signing" by senators in 1999 prior to the impeachment trials. Jennings clearly identified the Conservatives as Conservatives but did NOT EVEN ONCE label any far-left Liberals as Liberals.
The main premise for 'Bias' is to point out the FACT that the majority of the network media - for whatever reason or source (be it the corporate big-wigs of the networks, the producers, or the achors and reporters themselves) - have a common ideology that is clearly more LEFTIST than their audience really is. This ideology has led to the news coverage to lean to the left due to this FACT. And this is not the type of news I want to listen to nor do I trust.

the far left does not call itself Liberal. Liberal is the name of a certain segment of the capitalist class (namely those who, through ownership of wealth, are 'liberated' from manual labour and free to hold reformist ideas). The entire conservative spectrum identifies itself as such, therefore, the nomenclature is correct. Slapping the entire left with the "liberal" name is a cheap rhetorical gimmick. Any proper author identifies groups properly. The left is not entirely liberal. The name "liberal" appears to be a label that the conservatives are completely incapable of comprehending historically, they just go around slapping it on everything they cannot understand, without realizing that historically speaking, most of their own viewpoints are in fact, liberal.

"The problem is that the whole myth of the liberal media bias is preposterous because nobody who owns a broadcast license, or a newspaper, is a Democrat. They're all screaming on the right. And the flap about liberal media bias was manufactured by the right wing. The right wing goes to some of their friends in another part of the right wing and says, "You attack my network. You say that CBS is too liberal, and that gives us the license to behave more conservatively in order to appear to be fair". Thereby pushing any liberal idea completely out of their broadcast, and doing it in a way that's saying, "We're doing this to provide balance". Perfect fakeout. Because that's exactly what the people always wanted to do to begin with. The demise of the Red Lion Decision guaranteeing equal time for opposing points of view in a political situation - they got rid of that last year, or the year before. Most people don't even know that regulation doesn't exist anymore. It is no longer required of a broadcaster to give equal time to the opposition. And so the removal of that regulation, combined with the desire to have only one point of view presented to the American public, has given them this great opportunity in this election."

Excerpted from Part IV of interview at: http://www.science.uva.nl/~robbert/zappa/interviews/Bob_Marshall/Part04.html