Rhetorical Analysis Of Goldberg

In asserting that he has not written his book to extract revenge on his coworkers, Goldberg declares: "Anyone who writes a book to be vindictive is almost certainly insane.... my guess is it would be easier to give birth to triplets than write a book, especially if you've never written one before." (By this logic, perhaps Goldberg should have given birth to triplets and really made the network brass squirm.) This statement is unconvincing, though, since literary action was probably the best--if not only--avenue of retribution open to him. It is unclear to what extent anger steered Goldberg's pen (if he indeed wrote Bias for retaliation, he would certainly have had rationale) but even if he is sincere in his protestations of neutrality, could …show more content…
Could someone as intelligent, as experienced as Goldberg really have been blind to how his own organization operates? An example of Goldberg's inconsistent philosophy regarding intra-industry strife is found in his letter to Eric Engberg, the reporter he critiqued in his '96 op-ed, immediately after it was published. Goldberg wrote him: "the issue should never be that 'Goldberg launched a personal attack on Engberg.'... My point was about journalism and I stand by it. It was never about personalities or pesonal shots." True, Engberg might have richly deserved his comeuppance for slamming Steve Forbes like a basketball. Yet if Goldberg honestly believes that his strong rebuke of his own colleague (and friend), published in a major newspaper, does not represent a "personal attack," then he is living on the moon--or perhaps his own antagonistic style has numbed him to offensiveness except when he himself is its target. Goldberg's op-ed was the opening volley in a full-blown feud, and his book is the latest missile in that confrontation. His polemical style throughout would certainly indicate as much. He does not qualify as an innocent victim of the network's