Rating: 
Summary: Bias- a great reader
Review: bias is an increadibly entertaining and interesting book. there is so much that we don't know that the media is feeding us. mr. goldberg definitely wrote a bestseller if he wasn't the main character, hero, and a martyr of his book.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting read.....yet very flawed
Review: I just finished this book (On tape). I will tell you that I am not a fan of CBS news, not that I find them bad just not the news I grew up on. So I was not really familiar with Mr. Goldberg. I was eager to read this book because if the President thought it worthy enough for reading I should give it a try. (I would give it 2.5 stars but that is not an option)I agree there is Bias in the American media but not so much liberal or conservative, as just human. Even Mr. Goldberg reveals such Bias chapter after chapter in this book. His point was that the media in general and CBS specifically brings their liberal bias to the news they present. However if you look at the very item that begins his quest to stamp out this bias he writes his WSJ column and leaves out pertinent parts of the story about Mr. Engbergs Reality Check. He says that Mr Engberg's diatribe about Mr Forbes flat tax proposal was slanted and Mr. Enberg uses the liberal Brookings Institute to provide comments. He left out that also in the piece was opposition from Mr Gingrich and one other republican. Not really in the liberal court. This is only one example of how Mr. Goldberg skews the facts to suit his premise. That said I am glad I read the book and I would recommend it. I just warn you to approach the book with an open mind and be prepared to question some of his conclusions. Sometimes he displays a certain degree of inconsistency with his logic. For example he declares that he is a liberal when it comes to his values but I never once saw in the book a critique of his own work that he could point to that reveals this on-the-air bias. So I am ask to believe that it is possible for him to not bring his liberal values to a story but impossible for others to do the same. No there is Bias in how news is reported but and Mr. Goldberg admits this it not as much about politics or values as it has to do with ratings and economics and elitism. However that really would not sell books so you have use that red-meat tag LIBERAL. Sometimes the language is a tad vulgar (the F word was used a little too much) and he resorts to some petty name calling ('Dan's B**ch's). The book is long on emotion and a tad short on independent data. Whether the media is liberal in its bias is not something that overly concerns me though. I learned a long time ago that whether it is the news or the politician or the internet, as an individual I have the ultimate responsibility to look and the facts and seek out the facts and make my own decisions. Mr Goldberg raises some good issues...I just wished he had not been so Biased in some of his conclusions.
Rating: 
Summary: Dan Rather is like a Mafia Don???
Review: This is a very very astonishing book indeed. You really cannot ask for better proof that the major media (ABC, CBS, NBC) is liberally biased than what you find in this book. When a senior correspondent with 28 years of experience who is himself liberal, claims that his organization, and the others like it, are liberally biased you simply have to believe him. And certainly after 250 pages of relentless evidence you do. You are only left to imagine how different history would be today had it not been for media bias.
Almost as astonishing is the personal and intellectual attack on Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings. The author asserts very persuasively with much evidence that the three leading anchors are so ignorant and parochial in their understanding of government that they really don't know liberalism and conservatives well enough to understand what they are reporting. They are liberal not out of intellectual conviction but simply because everyone around them is, just as everyone in North Korea worships Kim Jung Il because everyone around them does. People who we think of as the most sophisticated and the most trusted among us are portrayed as simple fools. All this becomes sadly and abundantly clear as you listen to the anchors vehemently deny and then blatantly try to cover up their almost treasonous abuse of power. Dan Rather is directly and openly compared to a mafia Don in his thinking and tactics; only in this case the consequences are far more serious.
Some will argue that the liberal bias of the networks and virtually all of Hollywood is balanced by the conservative bias of talk radio and cable TV. This, it is pointed out, is not true because cable and talk radio point out that they are conservative when they are, while the major media presents liberalism as obvious truth. Also, much of the audience for cable and radio are conservatives already who are merely enjoying a sermon from their preacher, while the network TV audience and Hollywood audience is a general audience of undecided swing voters who have been deciding elections based in large part on their mistaken trust in the major media. One can only wonder at how different the world might be if Dan Rather had bothered to read the classic "Understanding the Difference Between Democrats and Republicans" when he was in school.
Rating: 
Summary: Starts strong, ends weak
Review: I will say that I consider myself a middle of the road Democrat(if one can exist). The book started well, giving decent examples of "bias". One may argue it could be bad reporting on the part of these news organizations, one might call it bias. The second half of the book seemed to fall apart in terms of conservative preaching and some unsubstantiated attacks on the media. If Bernard Goldberg had just maintained an objective tone I would have been close to convinced, but by the end of the book his vitriolic diatribes were tiresome and I was glad to be done with the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Iron-clad fact filled Best Seller!
Review: It is entertaining to see the rather weak and exclusively personal attacks on this book's author by Liberals in need of a spelling checker. You can't attack the content, because it is fact. Facts backed by real, unbiased polling, simply observation, real memos, and even real actual aired news footage! How can you argue with national broadcasts, many of which I remember watching! Even now, the Liberal media only focuses on endless war protests, as usual, helping the sworn enemies of the United States. They refuse to air the pro-war rallies that outnumber the protests 10 to 1. They are sickening, but at least everyone with half a brain is onto them by now. The book is actually very entertaining and laugh out loud funny, not because the author is trying to be humorous, but just because the extent to which the Liberals will go to sustain "The Big Lie" is just utterly astonishing.
Rating:
Summary: Goldberg systematically and irrefutably lays out his case
Review: On February 13, 1996, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial entitled "Networks Need a Reality Check" by Bernard Goldberg, a fixture at CBS News. The premise of the editorial was that 1) there was a liberal bias on the part of television news reporters that 2) got in the way of their reporting. This was not exactly an earthshaking revelation to most people --- Gallup Poll results have long indicated that three out of four Americans are aware of this --- but Goldberg's editorial set off shockwaves for two reasons. The first reason was that a network newsman was stating the obvious. The second (and perhaps more important) reason was that the author of the editorial is, himself, a liberal. The editorial resulted in Goldberg's ostracism from CBS and, ultimately, in the writing of BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News. The editorial that caused all the problems for Goldberg, as well as subsequent op-eds published on February 15, 1996 and May 24, 2001, are reprinted in BIAS. It would have been better, perhaps, if they had been reprinted in the front of the book rather than in an appendix at the end. They seem, at first blush, rather harmless, certainly when contrasted to the subsequent reaction they received in television newsrooms. And the reaction was not to the truth, or falsehood, of what Goldberg was saying; it was that he was making the observation at all. Goldberg's position and the ultimate premise behind BIAS is that network news has failed in its mission by presenting the liberal position on issues as the baseline, if you will, of reasonableness and that any variation from that position is controversial or a deviation from how things should be. Reasonable minds, in other words, do not differ. Goldberg's observation, both at the time he wrote his initial editorial and now, is that differing viewpoints should be presented without disparagingly labeling one and giving the other, more favored, viewpoint a pass. Again, Goldberg is a liberal, but he is secure enough in his worldview and fair enough in his journalistic outlook to welcome the presentation of differing views. The meat of BIAS is where Goldberg systematically illustrates how, when dealing with the major issues of our time such as homelessness, the Middle East, racism, AIDS and abortion, the networks have systematically favored one view to the exclusion of the other and have knowingly distorted the facts in order to do so. Goldberg also notes that the popularity of Fox News Channel in general --- and Bill O'Reilly in particular --- has occurred as a direct and proximate result of the major networks' failure to do the job they ostensibly set out to do. FNC's policy of seeking viewpoints from responsible spokespersons of groups such as Right to Life and CORE, in addition to the usual suspects such as NOW, Friends of the Earth and the NAACP, has been rewarded with enhanced viewership. It has also been derided as a conservative network, if only for its steadfast determination to present more than the liberal point of view. Again, this is not exactly a bulletin, especially to those who have attempted to watch network news objectively over the past 30 or so years. What is fascinating about BIAS, however, is that Goldberg did not permit his personal worldview to interfere with his role as a journalist. As is noted in BIAS, he ultimately became a pariah at the network he had dedicated his life to for pointing out that the emperor had no clothes. While BIAS does not contain any earthshaking revelations, it systematically and irrefutably lays out its case, point by point, for Goldberg's proposition concerning distortion of the news. For those who have been aware of this practice, BIAS will be a reaffirmation. For those who have been unaware of it, BIAS will be the salve that will cause the scales to fall from their eyes. Recommended. --- Reviewed by Joe Hartlaub
Rating:
Summary: Evidence from the Inside
Review: Former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg has done the work of a brave and hardy soul: he has dared to announce that the emperor has no clothes at the risk of his own career and past connections. He documents the bias that permeates a media that puts cultural correctness over truthful analysis. He has been on the inside and what he documents is a bias that is utterly unprofessional. The professional journalist should provide facts wherever they may lead even if they offend the people they socialize with and admire. Fortunately, we live in a competitive and free market economy where alternate sources of analysis, taking advantage of new technology such as cable television and the internet, are undermining the monopoly power over information of the major television networks. Goldberg's exposure is an implicit endorsement of the value of a competitive economy that provides such alternatives.
Rating:
Summary: Goldberg's book is an eye-opener
Review: I found this book to be a bracing and level-handed narrative. While it is obvious that Goldberg carries animosity toward Dan Rather, the reasons for that animosity are equally (and understandably) obvious. That Goldberg's feelings come though is not disguised, apologized for or compromising to his objectivity. Goldberg offers plenty of documented facts and news items that are available through libraries or Internet research. If you honestly believe political ideology is not reflected in the words (or actions/inactions) of the news media (and this include the corporate ownership of the media outlets) then this book should serve as an introduction to the psychology of the English language and power of the broadcasted word. After twenty-something years in the industry, Goldberg didn't just wake up one day and "bite the hand that fed him." The "straw that broke the camel's back" and set him on the course of this book, was the media treatment of Forbs' flat tax plan--a plan that was poked fun at instead of merely being reported. After Forbs' (and similar suggestions) were felled to the wayside, the Russians implemented a flat tax that lessened the taxable burden of a $5000 wage earner (in U.S. equivalent dollars) from paying $1,500 to $650 in taxes for that same income (this is in 2000 year dollars, just after the plan was implemented with results to critique). Likewise, the pre-2000 Russian tax revenue equaled 9 to 10 percent of their GDP that was boosted by 15% post flat tax implementation. And the Russian GDP grew 5 percent in 2001. Similarly, what Forbs suggested changing was the U.S tax rates of 10, 15, 27, 30, and 35 percent--all in the hopes of providing a fair tax program and income for the government. Whether Forbs was right was not the news media's job to determine or derail through slanted reporting. Of course, at the time no one had the real-world example of the Russian flat tax plan to point to--but did that make poking fun at the Forbs plan by the news media "okay?" Goldberg didn't think so. What I found (and still find) most interesting is the weak rebuttal to Goldberg's facts. Certainly Goldberg discusses conversations wherein he alleges the participants said they would deny such exchanges took place, but these "excerpts" are insignificant to the totality of this book. Even so, these are the items usually "attacked" in reviews, while rebuttal to factual information is conspicuous by its absence. After having read this book, I saw a "point/counter-point" review in a local newspaper wherein just such a review appeared. There was NO rebuttal to data, facts or news stories but rather jokes about the few conversations that even Goldberg himself said would not be corroborated. I don't know that Goldberg implies that "all conservatives" are identified by the news media while "all liberals" are not, as was indicated in a previous review here on Amazon.com. Such a wide-sweeping statement is not what I came away with after reading "Bias." But in addition to everything covered in this book, what I came away with was the startling realization that "yeah, I do remember hearing the "Dan Rathers" of TV news point out "conservative" instead of "liberal" lawmakers." When a book points out something I had personally witnessed and failed to note, I know I've read more than hot air. As for Goldberg's research... Well, as mentioned hereinabove, a tremendous amount of that "research" is available in the form of newspaper, magazines and recorded programs. Goldberg's book is an eye-opener. I highly recommend it. DL Tolleson
Author, "The Gray Stopgap"
Rating:
Summary: The stories are better from the inside
Review: Many, many people have pontificated on the behind the scenes nature of the media elites. But getting one of them to confess is a treat. Surprisingly, it isn't some evil desire to hurt the GOP or Christians that drives the leftists but rather a complete blindness to the existence of the competing views. A unique and interesting read.
Rating:
Summary: Ludicrous
Review: First off, this book shouldn't realy be called "Bias" -- it should be called "Boy, Do I Hate Dan Rather!" Because Goldberg REALLY hates Dan Rather to the point where his objectivity is utterly compromised resulting in a "woman scorned" kind of vitriolic prose that borders on the laughable. Beyond that, there are two incredibly serious flaws with Goldberg's book. The first is that, even if what Goldberg is saying is factual, it may prove a bias, but not a liberal bias. Some of what he describes is the "sweeps" mentality of profit-oriented news, where the fight for ratings results in many unseemly stories appealing to the viewers' baser instincts. That's bad journalism, to be sure, but liberal? I don't see how. He also talks about the tendencies for news magazines to focus primarily on white people in their stories. This is wrong, but again, I don't see how this is liberal. In actuality, it seems downright anti-liberal. The other flaw is that Goldberg doesn't bother to substantiate his "facts" and a number of his "facts" turn out to be wrong, i.e. the idea that all conservatives are identified as conservatives, whereas liberals are not identified as liberals (for a more thorough demolishing of this book, read Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?"). In the end, the fact that Goldberg doesn't feel it is necessary to do any research to support his findings, or even explain how his findings support his thesis, speaks volumes about his target audience ("Megadittos, Rush!") whom he believes (correctly) will be won over by this simplistic, sloppy, self-contradictory hateful little book.
| 
