Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

Rating:
Summary: ON THE LAMENTABLE QUALITY OF AMERICAN FISH & CHIPS...
Review: Okee-Dokee...I have now slogged through Mr. Goldberg's book on how the media is too liberal and Mr. Alterman's book on how it is actually too conservative. Having survived, I now come back up the mountain to give you all my opinion.

The problem with both of these books is best expressed by comparing them to the main weakness of your typical domestic order of Fish & Chips. Here in America one has no problem finding good chips (take a good look at our collective waistelines) but the Fish is rarely, if ever, fried to perfection. Both authors fail to even fry the right fish here.

Both Alterman (who by the way is probably the most engaging guest ever to appear on C-Span's Washington Journal) and Goldberg (whose recent work on HBO's Real Sports proves him to be a journalist of first rate talent) dance nicely through their themes and critiques. I'll even be super-generous and say that they are both mostly right in what they say.

The problem is this--for all their beautiful dancing, their failure to percieve what should be their true quarry is fatal. Both books become mere partisan babble. Each author, spouting partial arguments that ultimately turn inward, is left, much like the featured ballerina in Stravinsky's Le Sacre du printemps, dancing to their own death.

Yes the media is too liberal.

Yes the media is too conservative.

Both Goldbeg and Alterman argue this well. They then declare the case closed. If only it were.

The gutwrenching truth of it all is that the media is only as liberal and as conservative as its owners need it to be to serve certain interests. We live in the age of megolithic media control. There is no real diversity in major media. The minute there is, it is either co-opted or bought out.

The media plays faux conservatitism or zirconium liberalism to serve the needs of its owner's real politik and to pit any possible opponents against one another in the name of tired ideology.

I may be biased, but I never saw either of these books getting around to addressing this. Though superbly written (golden-crispy fries if you will), both of these pieces of fish are underdone and a little greasy.

Rating:
Summary: An extention of Goldbergs Op-Ed
Review: 6 years ago Mr. Goldberg wrote an Op-Ed piece in the WSJ that stated there was a leftward tilt in the news media. He was bascially confirming what everybody knew. This book however, lengthens his statement and provides a detailed insight into specific issues such as abortion, taxes and womens-issues that illustrate a left tilt to the media. At a high-level he shows that at each instance the media opts for an opinion from a left-leaning group and assumes that this opinion represents the "main-stream" view. An example of this is when they have a women-issue they go to the liberal N.O.W. instead of a mainstream womens group. Also, Dan Rather calling the NY Times editorial page "middle of the road", is proof that the media just doesn't see there own bias. With the recent development of Ted Koppel possibly being dumped for Lettermen coupled with the fact that network "news" loses more and more viewers, this book explains why CBS, NBC and ABC news are in trouble. The book also goes into Mr Goldbergs career at CBS, the aftermath of the Op-Ed piece and what he feels about most of the people involved.

Rating:
Summary: Great Book on all aspects
Review: This book is set apart from other conservative readings for it was written by a inside guy. Goldberg describes all aspects of the media bias from inside the newsroom. Must read for any conservative.

"In the world of the media elites, there are moderates and right-wing whackos"

Rating:
Summary: An Honest Personal Observation
Review: Bernard Goldberg's book is--and purports to be -- nothing more or less than his personal observations and opinions about the workings of the U.S. TV news industry. He developed his opinions as a result of having been a reporter for CBS News for almost 30 years. His opinions are honest and straightforward, and he's entitled to them. Moreover, they have validity precisely because "he was there." "Bias" is entertaining and insightful, and Mr. Goldberg is perfectly entitled to say everything he says.

The dishonesty of some of the left-leaning reviews of the book just astounds me. For example, the criticism from left-leaning reviewers that his accusations of liberal bias don't count because he doesn't support them with a lot of footnotes is ridiculous. His book is intended to tell us about HIS experiences in TV news, HIS interactions with the media bosses, HIS discussions with other reporters, HIS perceptions of how reporters do their jobs, etc. -- all based on HIS having worked in TV news. The book doesn't need footnotes.

Some of these leftist reviews tell you more about the present-day left than they do about Mr.Goldberg's book. They tell you, essentially, that if a person's opinions aren't politically correct, then the person isn't entitled to them. They tell you that despite what Mr. Goldberg saw and heard, his impressions are invalid because,look, here are some statistics from Eric Alterman or Jonathan Alter or some such liberal that "prove" the media cannot possibly be biased. "Mr. Goldberg," they essentially say, "is not entitled to form opinions based on what he saw and heard and experienced, and you are not entitled to believe him when he conveys those opinions to you. You both must be reeducated to the politically correct 'truth' that the media is not at all biased." Right. The media is not biased and neither are these leftist reviewers; the book is [bad material], and I DO love Big Brother. (But, just between you and me, I highly recommend that you go buy "Bias" and read it anyway.)

Rating:
Summary: Interesting viewpoint-very muddled analysis.
Review: I bought Bernard Goldberg"s Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News at an airport news stand between flights on a recent business trip. What caught my eye was a "blurb" prominently splashed across the front cover that read "'Bias' should be taken seriously." And who was that quote from? Why that bastion of liberal tradition, the New York Times! How could anyone pass on that sort of irony?

This book is interesting, but logically it's a mess.

Take the whole "Flat Tax" flap that serves as the instigator of Goldberg's public feud with his bosses at CBS (he wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal about the reporting on this issue, provoking their ire towards him) which Goldberg chronicles in detail in this book. Goldberg asserts that CBS's reporting, specifically that of Eric Engberg, was critical of the notion in its entirety and therefore stands as a classic example of "liberal media bias". "There is absolutely no way", he writes " that Enberg or Rather would have aired a flat-tax story with that same contemptuous tone if Teddy Kennedy or Hillary Clinton had come up with the idea." The clear implication is it was the media's liberal bias that colored that story-presumably with the express intent of harming the Republicans and aiding the Democrats in an election year. What Mr. Goldberg fails to communicate is that this piece came out during the primaries when it's proponent, Steve Forbs, was running against the presumed nominee, Bob Dole. If you go back and look at that election coverage in the winter and spring of 1996 you will see that all kinds of respectable Republicans-Including Dole, Newt Gingrich and others, were lambasting Forbes's economic plans from all sides. It was primarily Bob Dole-not the Democrats-who benefited from this coverage.

The basis for Goldberg's allegations, charges and whatnot in the book have two foundations. The first is his own fist hand experience. These provide interesting insights and much fodder for contemplation. However, even some of his own stories muddle his assertions. For example, one of Goldberg's consistent themes, often repeated throughout this book, is that journalists are so ideologically insular that they "can't even recognize their own bias". As evidence he tells the tale-and this is a central event in the book, oft mentioned throughout this text-- of a conversation with CBS News President Andrew Heyward in which the latter allegedly confessed to Goldberg that "of course there's liberal bias in the media" but tells Goldberg that "if you any of this, I'll deny it". Excuse me, how to you admit to something you are so insular you can't recognize? It's this sort of muddled logic that permeates this book.

The second is the often cited surveys that show a vast majority of journalists, when polled, identify themselves as Democrats. The implication is that all Democrats are liberal, virtually all journalists are democrats, therefore all journalists are liberal. There are two problems with this. The first is, based on my experience living in the south for much longer than I care to admit, is that there are plenty of hard-core conservatives in the Democratic Party. They aren't called "yellow dog" Democrats for nothing.

The other problem is that when you dig into these surveys they reveal journalists actually look a lot like a lot of middle America when specific issue surveys are included-a bit to the left on social issues, a bit to the right on economic and military issues.

Towards the end of the book Goldberg asserts that "Ratings are the reason television people (including journalists and their bosses-my addition, not a part of the direct quote) do everything they do". Gee, based on the rest of his book, I thought it was bias.

There's another nagging problem here. For a book that's supposedly the work of a crack investigative journalist, this tome is long on assertion and allegations and very short on objective analysis, data and evidence. Goldberg obviously genuinely believes in the concept of liberal media bias. He does precious little to actually document it in concrete ways.

Does the media have biases? Almost surely. Does this book offer any real, meaningful insight and analysis into the origins, workings and effects of that bias? Not really.

Rating:
Summary: Poorly-written, nonetheless extremely important and gutsy
Review: This book is not very graceful. The prose is childish. Goldberg often uses profanity. And there is not much of a flow to the argument.

However, I still think that this book is extremely important - and Bernard Goldberg is a very courageous man. It is true that the media is very arrogant and very tiltied to the left. We've all known it for years. Now, one of the insiders who has personal experience has confirmed what we've all known all along.

The book offers a behind-the-scenes look at CBS News. It affords us an extremely important perspective on an important issue of our time. I would recommend it to anyone - conservative or liberal.

Rating:
Summary: One of the most important books of the 21st Century...
Review: ...if you own a television or radio and watch and/or listen to news. Bernie Goldberg did something more brave than any of his contemporaries even fantasized about - he wrote factual editorial in the Wall Street Journal about liberal bias in the media. Doesn't sound like a big deal - conservatives scream liberal bias almost as often as liberals scream about "right-wing" bias... but unlike those who brought up the subject before, Bernie Goldberg was an insider - a correspondent on CBS news.

Not only was "the Dan" (Rather) so livid that he stated he would "never" forgive Goldberg for such a betrayal (for "telling it like it is"), his entire career (over a quarter of a century at CBS) was flushed down the toilet, with all the media elites fighting for the flush lever... with "the Dan" as head plumber.

The brass at CBS treating him like a Pariah and the media elites on the other networks, Jennings, Brokaw and others were vehemetly denying that they even had any political slant and claimed that Goldberg, himself a self-avowed liberal who claims to have never voted for a Republican in his life, had some long-standing Right-wing agenda.

Goldberg does more than just talk about his one editorial and the reaction, but cites article after article in mainstream press in America and cites quote after quote from liberals and conservatives on Radio and TV and contrasts their statements with opposite equivalents to make those w/ a liberal slant wake up and smell the bias (if they dare).

Those who still deny a liberal bias after reading this book cover to cover are either lying, brain-dead or too stupid to know the difference.

Goldberg's book is an extremely witty, often funny, and clearly factual account of liberal bias among the media elites and the "big 3" networks. This should be required reading of all journalist/mass-media majors in college. Goldberg cites the ratings plunge of the network news programs year after year (the vast majority are going for cable options such as the more equally balanced FoxNews Channel) as a symptom of a long-ignored illness he first alluded to in his editorial - the public generally does not trust the main stream media. Before they had no choice but to pick from CBS, NBC or ABC - now the choices are abundant - or as Goldberg would categorize it, "sky's the limit."

Far from being a "tell-all" whine-fest of a disgruntled employee airing dirty laundry as a vendetta against his former task-masters, Goldberg speaks kindly of Rather on many respects, and seems to deal as fair handed as anyone could ask for in discussing what the puppet-masters at CBS, et al have been sweeping under their corporate rugs for years.

This is not only an easy, entertaining read, it's a must-read. If you read any non-fiction books this century, this should be the first one you grab - and don't let go until you've read it cover to cover!

Rating:
Summary: Sloppy Research
Review: Note that I haven't yet read this book. But since I recently learned of a rather egregious misquote that originated from this book, I question whether the rest of his research was as sloppy.

When I first heard about this book, I was intrigued by the concept, and I assumed that Mr. Goldberg knew whereof he spoke. After all, he has had a long career in the mainstream media. And even a far-left liberal would have to concede that the major newspapers and network news do have a pro-liberal bias.

However.....Mr. Goldberg attacks Howell Raines in this book. Mr. Raines was the former editor of the New York Times. Mr. Goldberg claims that Mr. Raines made the following statement:

"Ronald Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it."

Goldberg uses that quote as some sort of "proof" that Raines is anti-Reagan, and that Raines made an ad hominem attack on Reagan.

Well, folks.... HOWELL RAINES NEVER SAID THAT!!! Instead, his good friend Dick Blalock said it, as quoted in Raines' book "Fly Fishing Through The Midlife Crisis".

Now, it wasn't too difficult to fact-check that particular quote. It's plainly stated in Raines' book, not buried in footnotes or anything.

But Goldberg couldn't even be bothered to check his sources.

So....what does that say about the remainder of Goldberg's book? Based on that one rather appalling and sloppy mistake, how much would you bet me that I couldn't find a half-dozen more like that in this book?

And the fact that Ann Coulter, and others of her ilk, are spreading this misquote? Well, to me it's proof that these are people who are willing to bend the truth if there's a potentially juicy quote that they just don't want to give up.

Rating:
Summary: Goldberg is "Bias"ed
Review: As a moderate Democrat I feel it is important to hear and consider other points of view. It was somewhat of a revelation to me to learn that the major networks may lean to the left in their reporting of the news. It was, however, very painful to endure Mr. Goldberg's relentless right-wing rhetoric. He uses all the subtlety of a sledgehammer in displaying his own bias. I think this seriously detracts from what could have been a groundbreaking book.

Rating:
Summary: Fun and enlightening read.
Review: Well, now that you can get a used copy of this book for the price of a latte, why not get it? An insider blows the whistle on CBS news! I can't really write anything that hasn't already been written, but I can say that I sure enjoyed this book.

This book's one downfall to me is that it comes across as one long rant, but maybe Mr. Goldberg deserves to rant a bit after what he's been through.