Rating: 
Summary: Finally!
Review: A great book! It is too bad more people don't realize that there is a true left-wing "agenda" to most network news and media in general. Goldberg does a great job, and he isn't even a Republican....HA! A must read.
Rating:
Summary: Confirmation!
Review: When I heard that this book was going to be published, I thought... 'Old news, which will be quickly dismissed by the left controlled media outlets', then I heard Dan Rather was very upset by it's upcoming release and I knew I had to get it. If the media bias poster child got his feathers in a bunch over this, I was 100% sure it was bound to be good. I was right. Bernard Goldberg did an amazing job at encapsulating all the feelings and frustrations most of us have had about the media for years and placing them into undeniable 'fact ammo'. Now armed with the truth from a real insider like Goldberg, we can defend ourselves against what clear thinking people all knew individually, but did not have collective power to change. The raw information we are supposed to recieve untainted as the news by mainstream media, is thrown into their liberal meat grinder and blended with biased opinions and untruths, then served to us packed - processed with a pretty bow on top. Those of us who have been patiently waiting an alternative, have had their wishes granted and this book I believe was the straw that finally broke the camel's back. Fox News and talk radio have flourished strictly based on people's ability now to choose one or the other and thank goodness that isn't something either side can control.
Rating:
Summary: Bias - A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
Review: Mr. Goldberg explained most all of the uneasy feelings that I have felt about the networks, for many years! He is very fair and right on target, in his analysis of the different topics in his book. Everyone should read this and then turn to and only watch the FoxNews Network!
Rating:
Summary: Chock-full of shock value
Review: It is said there's more than one way to skin a cat. Well, Bernie tried them all - from the inside. Much to his chagrin, they didn't work. So, he had to take matters into his own hands, so to speak, by writing his now infamous op-ed piece in the WSJ. Of course, The Dan(as he is pseudo-affectionately referred to by Bernie) went into a furious rage and Bernie was subsequently yanked off the air - due to his supposed airing of dirty laundry in the public forum. What an ostensibly unspeakably heinous and seditious act, right? Wrong. Bernie tried and tried to bring the palpably and painfully obvious problem of elite Leftist media bias to the proverbial forefront from within, but, of course, to no avail. The elite Leftist media then spuriously and viciously vilified and maliciously maligned Mr. Goldberg into a neo-conservative ideological nut complete with a right-wing agenda and a veritable ax to grind. Bernie lays out his prodigious assertions, and then proceeds to solidly and candidly corroborate them one by one - with irrefutable and undeniable hard evidence. I recommend this book to all Americans - you will never see the news the same again. You'll be able to decipher and decode The Big Three's liberally biased, and oftentimes cryptic, newscasts - to a fault. Is it a shock that CBS is in the cellar and The O'Reilly Factor outdraws it on a consistent basis? This humble reader thinks not.
Rating: 
Summary: This Insider Gets It
Review: Bernard Goldberg, ex-CBS reporter, provides an insiders account of the way the big three (ABC, CBS, NBC) approach reporting the news and events on their broadcast stations. The news, he asserts is tilted towards the left, becauase it is the worldview held by the majority of producers and television personnel. Chapters like "Epidemic of Fear" - about the AIDS crises, "How About a Media that Reflects America - which discusses the disproportionate number of journalists who are liberal compared to a more middle of the road/conservative watching public, and "How Bill Clinton Cured the Homeless" - which evaluates the way journalists pursure stories under President Clinton as compared to the first President Bush are all strong examples about the bias displayed among the bradcast stations in favor of the liberal position and people. There are hints of personal anger, however, as evident in the way he calls Dan Rather "The Dan" (as a play on words of the mafia calling one The Don). This might have been "cute" if it happened a time or two, but his repeated usage of the phrase demonstrates some hostility and as such gets in the way of bringing about an objective look at this liberal media problem. The book reads easily enough and is provocactive. A solid read.
Rating:
Summary: The truth hurts
Review: At this moment in time, I am not a right-wing nut. I am not a kook. I teach at a respectable technical college. I am definitely not a Republican. After hearing all the hubbub about this book, I bought it when it came out recently in paperback. Mr. Goldberg's description of his own political views and career should be enough to shake off accusations of some conspiracy. He says himself that if this were just sour grapes, writing a book about it wouldn't be the most efficient way of going about it. About the only way one could discredit this book is to assume that he is lying through his teeth. If he is, to what end? With only about 10 pages left to read in this book, I have come to my own conclusions, comparing his ideas to what I actually see in the media myself. Some of the reviews here almost seem to be written by people who never read the book. Why anyone would conclude that the basic premise of the book is false is mystifying, because the overwhelming consensus before the book came out was that bias in news -- especially television news -- was noticeable. What was not available to us before was why. Goldberg's book is by no means a hatchet job. Yes, his stories and anecdotes from within CBS aren't directly provable (neither are they directly disprovable), but Goldberg certainly does provide an ample amount of hard data to support many of his observations. His bottom-line point is not that there is a vast liberal conspiracy to slant the news, but that in fact news people genuinely believe they represent the mainstream of America and thus see their approach as reasonable. His opinion, one which I agree with, is that this is almost worse than blatant bias. If nothing else, at least Bernard Goldberg has put the topic of news bias squarely in the middle of the table.
Rating:
Summary: BIAS: What If Goldberg is even Remotely Right?
Review: One of the most influential and provocative books of the last decade is Bernard Goldberg's BIAS. Goldberg's thesis is that the television and newspaper media in this country have long had a bias toward liberalism and against conservatism. Although I consider myself a reasonably well-informed citizen, I had not given this issue too much consideration--at least until I read this book. I am now convinced that there is more than a grain of truth in his accusations against the liberal left headed by CBS News in general and Dan Rather in particular. As I read BIAS, I could see that Goldberg was a man of conscience who for most of his broadcasting career had been allied with the very ones he now criticizes. Goldberg is careful not to accuse the liberal left of being a consciously directed cabal of plotters who seek to knowingly advance their cause at the expense of another. Instead, he notes that their slant on the news in entirely unconscious and is based on their collective liberal worldview that they do not see as a political leaning at all. Rather, they see liberalism as mainstream American thought, thus not needing any qualifying adjectives as 'liberal' to tag a left thought. Goldberg notes that any significant conservative politician or proposed legislation is almost always tagged by the left as 'conservative' in order to mark that politician or legislation as somehow being out of step with mainsteam (liberal) thought. These are troubling ideas since Americans need to be reassured that what they see and hear from the mass media is even-handed in the presentation of major issues. Goldberg indicts the liberal left media with analyses of how CBS and the New York Times is hugely influential in shaping how America perceives key issues. He notes, among others: Dan Rather's willingness to squash dissent within his own ranks; the disappearance of homelessness under Clinton and its concommitant reappearance under Reagan; the AIDS crisis being falsely trumpeted as breaking out into liberal America as a heterosexual epidemic. One of his most telling points was Goldberg's mention of a Palestinian song called "I Hate Israel." I had never heard of it before nor had I even heard of any reporting in this country about it. Unwilling to take Goldberg's word for it, I went online and sure enough I discovered that in 2001 "I Hate Israel" had been a hugely popular anti-Israel and anti-semetic pop tune in the Arab world. Goldberg suggests that the reason "I Hate Israel" received no play in this country is that the liberal media did not want to offend a group of minorities (Arabs and Arab Americans) who might otherwise be inclined to view any attacks on this song as anti-Arab or worse, pro Israel. It is easy for the reader to brush off such conspiratorial works as BIAS as the ravings of one who was fired and wishes only to get back at his ex-bosses. But what emerges after reading it is that I now feel constrained to watch the nightly news more critically. The next time I hear the Dan refer to politician "x" as conservative, then I might wonder why he does not return the favor with a similar tag of liberal for candidate "y."
Rating:
Summary: Compelling reading
Review: I read this book in one day. Goldberg's writing is incisive, biting, and at times, witty. Exposes the hypocrisy of the network darlings, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, et al, who, eager to make heroes out of whistleblowers in corporate America, respond with Nixonian paranoia when someone from inside their own camp questions their motives. What astonished me was that the impetus for Goldberg's ostracization within the media community-his 1996 Wall Stree Journal Op-ed piece-was rather mild in its critisicm of the media, and, if anything, singled out CBS correspondent, Eric Engberg. Yet it was this piece that caused Dan Rather to tell Goldberg that he would "never" forgive him, despite the fact that he would welcome a tyrannical dictator like Fidel Castro with open arms.
In short, Goldberg's indictment doesn't confine itself to liberal vs conservative, but attacks the decline of ethics in journalism without sounding like a conspiracy theory text. Great read.
Rating:
Summary: Bias in the Corporate Media?
Review: Don't Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story! Those who work for a company know that certain policies cannot be questioned; your manager's opinions are best left unchallenged. After three decades at CBS Bernard Goldberg discovered this fact also applies to media workers! The corporate lifeblood of advertising depends on telling people what to think and buy. What insider can question this? Corporate workers know what policies and viewpoints will help you get ahead, even if you do not have a relative in upper management. Its not just dressing for for success, but politically correct thinking. BG says "the networks tilt left" (p.2) but provides no proof. Are they advocating a Canadian-style health care system? Are they seeking to nationalize the military-industrial complex, or end corporate controlled agriculture? Are they asking for higher income tax rates? Or are they merely presenting "feel good" news to sedate their viewers? Hollywood knows their audiences favor a happy ending; why shouldn't there be "happy news"? BG writes "network news ... steals just about everything from print" (p.25). So they merely echo the news from Establishment leaders like the 'New York Times' or 'Washington Post'. He doesn't tell who controls these newspapers; he sees the trees but not the forest. Page 32 quotes Dan Rather: "you just try to tell me how to report the news". Don't his managers do that every day? Can Dan ever deviate from reading his script on TV? (I once was him apologize to the TV camera when he stumbled over the script he had to recite.) And Dan never uses his Texan accent either! Corporate broadcasts of the news use it as a vehicle for advertising. It must be that a "liberal bias" sells, and other styles don't; the bottom line commands attention. Nothing in this book denies that "liberal bias" reflects the policies of their corporate owners. "The first step in controlling a communicable disease is to determine who is getting it and how" (p.89). Do people catch "liberal bias" by living in small rural towns? Do they catch it from working in urban financial centers like New York, San Francisco, or Atlanta? Do they get it from studies in college? BG needs to document this disorder better. If journalists are more "liberal" than the general public could it be a type of industrial disease? They do learn more about what's happening, and how the news is censored; it could make them more cynical. Chapter 11 has an important and under-reported story: the decline of "child well-being". Does the absence of parents result in poor learning, drug abuse, and other evils? Do corporations profit from working mothers, convenient fast-foods, and remedial schooling? Does the media profit from their advertising? BG says this failure to report is caused by laziness (p.167), but the real answer may be that it would reduce the profits of their advertisers. Page 172 says that children in day care tend to be more aggressive and defiant: argue a lot, demand a lot of attention, act cruelly, slow explosive behavior, talk too much, and get into a lot of fights. (Is this Pavlovian conditioning?) The increasing number of children in early day care exactly coincides with the epidemic of childhood asthma (p.176). The news that day care results in more respiratory tract infections was censored from the newspapers (p.177). BG doesn't ask if this is due to advertisers, he just says the "media elites" kept it hidden!
Rating: 
Summary: And the point is....?
Review: Goldberg offers a potentially fascinating book: an insider speaking out on what's wrong with network reporting. Unfortunately the presentation doesn't live up to the promise. The points he raises on Jennings, Brokaw, Rather and the like could easily apply to conservative counterparts Goldberg apparently sees as more rounded in their reporting. What's more, in a book that demands facts to back up the thesis Goldberg's lack of footnotes or bibliography is a gaping hole. Much of the book amounts to Goldberg venting his spleen over what he sees as media bias and he does offer some examples. The intelligent reader certainly can see Goldberg's point of view, but is left with a nagging question: is that all there is? Ultimately Goldberg's points are awash in a sea of hypocrisy as he champions conservative voices, including the hopelessly biased Rush Limbaugh. Why doesn't Goldberg point out that Limbaugh publicized this book on numerous occassions? If a "liberal" book writer and television reporter engaged in the same relationship Goldberg correctly would call this an example of bias in the media (and Limbaugh--though he may weasel word his way around it--is a member of the media.) There are strong arguments to be made that there is bias in the media. But this book, rife with its own biases and missteps, isn't the tome it purports to be.
| 
