Some might argue that this “Bernie” post is a way to gin up traffic.

JJ: But it [Goldberg's "publicity stunt"] still works. It sells books.

Yes, just as reporting on gossiping about the behind the scenes actions on a subject to which you were taken to task draws readers to your blog. See, I’m here and I’d never read your blog before the Bernie imbroglio though I have seen you on cable. Very clever self promotion, Mr. Jarvis. Ain’t America grand? Now, such plots may backfire too if the engagement is dishonest. Would you care to guess what many think of your credibility now? Do you think that I’ll trust “Cable”NBC’s reportage of information? I was skeptical before and am even more skeptical now. Would that be considered positive or negative reinforcement? Goldberg’s point has been positively reinforced. I’m here now only to watch your spin, and how satisfyingly dizzying it is proving to be.

You may find my revisit and posting Pavlovian in nature, hence the snide “Yes, cue the Berniacs” remark topping this response section and preempting those who disagree with you. That’s fine. I like Goldberg’s on-air presentation and find his demeanor quite reasonable (barring obscene ambush, of course) and his exposé of the bias in media enlightening. And, just like good little poochies, the traditionalists of the trade are drooling to discredit the rare breed that has escaped the den. But I would find your revisit to the Bernie issue obsessive too. One might think your “Credibility Resurrection Tour” a bit predictable.

By all means continue to follow up on the Bernie story and advance the idea that Goldberg is “Rovian” in his manipulation of the left-leaning cadre. Clear thinkers well recognize the real deception. I rather enjoy the voyeurism and recording of your fall into the MSM abyss. It is as enlightening as Goldberg’s text.

FYI - There’s an error in the link in the comments section of The reviews are in. In your reply to a request for old comments, you post:

The old comments are all up on the old site here. See the moving day post above.

That link is in error -
http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2005/07/21/the-reviews-are-in/%7Bhttp://www.buzzmachine.com/mt-index.html
and does not link to any comments from that thread. I hope that was an unintentional oversight from the change in software.

For those of you still interested in tracing the original stories from the old blog, please review Mr. Jarvis’s archives:

July 19, 2005
The 100 lists I hate and comments

July 20, 2005
Bizarro Bernie and comments

July 21, 2005
The reviews are in and comments

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnbc/duffy_deutsch_a_new_strategy_for_cnbcs_big_idea_23898.asp

First of all, I like the new format for the website but what what happened to all the existing comments? Did they disappear?

I finally had the chance to see the video and I have to add chorus of voices criticizing this as an unfair ambush. Which is a shame, because in theory you are right about Bernie Goldberg’s book. His theme is that these pundits are polarizing America, but he only chooses liberal pundits to add to his list, so as a result he ends up with a very polarizing book. There is a fatal disconnect between the premise and content. You claim that it was not necessary for you to have read the book. Fine. But to have five people gang up on Bernie, and not one of them has read the book, does that not strike you as more than a bit unfair?

Imagine what would have happened if last year, Michael Moore was invited to appear on a show with five conservative republicans to be attacked over Fahrenheit 9/11, and not one of those people had seen the movie? Moore would have had a field day with it. He would have been on CNN or CBS just as quickly as Goldberg appeared on FOX News. It would have been a PR coup for him even though each one of those five hypothetical conseratives would be stamping their feet the way you are now.

And on that subject, Goldberg had a point that the reason why he appears on FOX News so much is because they’re one of the few stations that will have him. How predictable that his only appearance on one of the three big networks to promote his first book, Bias, he had to share the stage with (surprise, surprise) Michael Moore. You guys keep insisting that Bernie Goldberg is wrong, but yet you keep playing right into his hands.

Again, I agree with you that the book is wrongheaded from start to finish. Which is why it was astonishing that on that program, Goldberg appeared to be the winning end of the argument. Note that I said “appeared”. He did not have satisfactory answers to the questions. But when he’s being bullied from all sides, it’s a lot easier to overlook that, as evidenced by all the negative feedback directed to you over that show.