Rating: 
Summary: Exposing the obvious!!
Review: Outstanding!!! For years I thought I was the only one who noticed certain groups and (or) politicians identified on the evening news as "conservative". But when's the last time you've heard any group (or politician) identified on the big 3 (ABC, NBC, and CBS) as liberal? Hmmm?
Goldberg exposes the fundamental bias at the major networks. A bias not due to a certain type of ethnicity, or regionalism (some people might disagree with me on that), but bias in fundamental philosophy in how the world is. He articulately points out that most journalists don't have blue collar friends or friends outside of the big media centers (i.e. N.Y., L.A.). He correctly portrays most media members as out of touch.
Actually, I wasn't going to write a review of this book because I felt that my thoughts had already been reflected by many others. But I came across a review that discussed Goldberg's recent appearance on the Phil Donahue show (on MSNBC). This reviewer felt that comedian/recovering drug addict/slander writer Al Franken somehow "exposed" the "lies" of Goldberg's book. Absolutely preposterous!! I saw the show myself and the only thing Al showed was he was a moron. The point of contention came when Al brought up a quote from Goldberg's book (in the chapter entitled: "Liberal Hate Speech") in which that John Chancellor (the former NBC news anchor, now deceased) said (about the situation in Russia in 1991) that ".......the problem is shortages......no one even mentioned communism today.....". Goldberg's reason for bringing this quote up is obvious: Chancellor was trying to say that Russia's current problems have absolutely nothing to do with 70 years of stagnation under communism!! Ridiculous! Al Franken thought that it was important that this comment was made in response to the (failed) revolt against Boris Yelstin, and that Goldberg didn't know what happened in Russia on that day. Irrelevant!! The point is: THEY HAVE SHORTAGES BECAUSE OF 70 YEARS OF COMMUNISM!!! CHANCELLOR WAS TRYING TO SAY THAT COMMUNISM HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!! Al also thought that it was mean-spirited of Goldberg to bring this up because Chancellor is dead. Is that Goldberg's fault?
Actually there are many more notable quotables from the "liberal hate speech chapter" (like Julian Melveaux wishing Clarence Thomas an early death), detailing how vicious liberals can me if you disagree with them.
Rating: 
Summary: Correct message, execution could be better
Review: As someone who has studied media bias--and who, by the way, agrees with Goldberg's analysis 100%--this book was eye-opening only in a few aspects, but they were nonetheless striking. It was news to me that there is a party line among journalists: they are not to admit publicly that there is bias. Journalists can do hard-hitting exposes of all sorts of industries and government functions--just not of journalism itself. That will give any journalist a reputation as a vicious traitor. It was also interesting to learn of the brazen and straightforward racial bias based on desired for increased ratings (with white audiences). I doubt that is the sort of bias that people thought they'd be reading about--it's not political bias per se--but to my mind, the basic principle is the same. Namely, journalists are interested in advancing a liberal agenda and in making a profit while doing it, but what they are not, or not enough, interested in is simply stating the truth in a way that lets people make up their minds for themselves.In a way, this book reads more like an extended letter to sympathetic friends than an extended argument. It's a personal book. There's lots of qvetching and explanations of personal problems and encounters with colleagues. It's more or less structured by the story of Goldberg's public criticism of ABC News, and the fall-out of that. Now don't get me wrong: the bulk of the book does consist of general (very plausible) assertions and shocking instances of bias of various kinds, regarding race, homelessness, white men, crime, and other topics. If the latter is the "meat" of the book, and if that's what we should judge the book by, then the book isn't particularly special. The discussions are, while insightful and entertaining and made all the more interesting because they're given by an insider, not particularly incisive or thoughtful. That doesn't mean the book is a waste of time, by any means. Just that it could have been considerably better. The book also really needed another proofreader. I spotted a number of stylistic infelicities which gave me the impression that it was quickly written by Goldberg and then rushed off to the presses with little attention to copyediting. There is one thing I want to add, which doesn't so much concern the merits of the book as to how it is sold. Goldberg declares himself to be a liberal. But he does us an enormous favor by actually describing, for a couple of pages, exactly what his political views are, and what he means by "liberal," and based on that description, I think it's very clear he should be labelled a moderate. By calling himself a "liberal" he is simply making a rhetorical point, that thirty years ago, when he was fresh on the scene, his views were liberal. Sadly, they aren't any longer, as the Establishment has moved leftward. He hasn't changed, the people called "liberals" have, and he doesn't want to go along with that. I can sympathize (I don't think modern "liberals" deserve that name either), but it is a little disingenuous for Goldberg to insist on this so strenuously. I give the book three stars even though I agree 100% with the message. I strongly discourage the practice of rating books according to how much you agree with them. If this had not been written by Goldberg and the "meat" of the book were not put in the context of his personal experiences, which were interesting and enlightening to read about, it would get perhaps 2 stars from this reviewer. (Even though, again, I agree 100% with the message.) What makes the book stand out as much as it does is the fact that it's written by an insider--and this angle is well-exploited and Goldberg does a good job with it.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't waste your money on this propaganda
Review: If the corporate owned media supposedly has "liberal bias" then why are there so many commentators like O'Rielly, Rush Limbugh, Bob Grant, etc. If you still believe this lie, then why is it that we never hear in depth news in the following topics: Corporate Corruption, Homelessness, the real jobless rate, ecological destruction, governmental corruption, workers rights, civil rights, women's rights, etc. PLEEEASSE! Goldberg can be counted amongst these exponents of right wing nonsense. His book goes to great lengths to try and prove his false point by using faulty logic, specious arguments, red herring data and generally bad or a total lack of research. This book is nothing more that conservative knee-jerk dribble that is written to sell books to dim witted dupes. Save your money and instead buy a subscription to magazines like EXTRA! if you want find out the real scoop on the state of corporate media.
Rating:
Summary: Another Biased book filled with lies
Review: As Al Franklin proved on Donahue when he confronted Goldberg with the many lies and false truths presented in this book (the transcripts can easily be found on the web); there is blatant skewing of facts and quotes taken out of context in this book. I wouldn't even use the pages of this book to pick up my dog's ....
Rating:
Summary: The most important book of our time
Review: If you want to keep your eyes firmly closed and believe that the government, military, churches, and corporations are all in a giant evil conspiracy than don't read this book. Go to your "free press" and whisper in your coffee shops about "the man". As someone who has been deeply involved in all the institutions above I know that these organizations couldn't form a conspiracy if they wanted to--they are too diffuse and incompetent! But I do know what I hear on the evening news and it's not "fair and objective". Goldberg has been on the inside. I think he knows a thing or two. As a member of the first generation who has had TV and mass media for their entire lives, I feel we underestimate the effect it has on every aspect of our existence. The way we conduct our day to day lives, the conversations we have, our opinions, how we try to raise our kids... all are deeply influenced by mass media. The power there is awesome, concentrated and unchecked. Say something on the airwaves or in print and it's true. This book is chilling. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece exposé
Review: Goldberg's main point is that journalists don't intentionally set out to skew the news; liberal bias is insidious. So insulated are journalists from differing opinions, they feel their own liberal positions are the only reasonable, civilized, normal positions. They believe conservatives are racist, sexist Neanderthals. Because their worldview colors everything they do, journalistic bias is rampant and, at the same time, unacknowledged. Books like Slander and Coloring the News make the same points, except Bias was first. It all started when a story on then-presidential candidate Steve Forbes's flat tax ran on CBS news, purportedly giving the readers the facts to make up their own minds. But all the experts shown were liberals (though not identified as such) and all were against the flat tax! The reporter even called the flat tax "wacky." Goldberg brought it up and nobody cared. Finally he sent an editorial to the Wall Street Journal. He talks a lot about the reactions of his peers. Some of the journalists that ran to support him were John Stossel, Andy Rooney, and Bob Costas. Dan Rather, though, said he would never, ever forgive Goldberg. According to Rather, Goldberg is (suddenly) a right-wing kook with an agenda, the New York Times is middle-of-the-road, and most journalists don't know if they're Democrat or Republican. To Rather, bias doesn't exist. Goldberg goes on to give other examples of bias. He tells how a TV journalist covering post-hurricane looting in a Caribbean country serendipitously taped looters being arrested, only to have the story spiked because the looters were black and it offended a black CBS staffer (although the cops were also black, as is 95% of the country). He relates a producer insisting a black man be called "African American" instead of black or the story wouldn't run--despite knowing that the victim was Jamaican, not American. The politically correct producer just wouldn't, couldn't, say the man was black. By themselves, the harm in these decisions seems minimal, but they indicate a growing willingness for journalists to paint a PC picture instead of tell the truth. He discusses the rigging of statistics by AIDS and homeless groups and how journalists think they are helping them by not questioning the numbers. Instead, their complicity only does harm by obfuscating the root problems. Goldberg also deflates common feminist myths, like women earning 59 cents to the dollar for "equal" work. If that were true, corporate America would simply get rid of all men and hire women to do everything. He talks about the stories that won't get covered, namely anything negative about daycare or positive about men. What distinguishes this from Slander is that Goldberg was a respected, connected network insider. After a biased story ran, he didn't just document it; he'd call the journalist and asked why he said this or that. He is more reasonable and seems to have actually made some impact with liberals, while Coulter only alienated them. He's not against liberal ideas per se, just liberal bias. Conservative bias would be just as wrong in an objective newsroom. My complaints would be (1) comparing news coverage is not so simple. There are myriad reasons why a given story doesn't run. (2) Goldberg complains about network newspeople making male-bashing jokes. While his complaints are valid, I would hate to see men become another victim group, just another sacred cow who can't take a joke. The audiobook is read by the author, and his training as a TV journalist prepared him well. He puts plenty of oomph into his voice, making emotions like anger, frustration, and astonishment obvious. And he knows how to pause while reading statistics. I was less impressed by the interview after the book, which only briefly discussed the ideas in Bias, instead focusing on other aspects of news like corporate interference and the length of the stories. On the whole, this is well-written and powerful documentation of a massive problem with both individual and national importance. Bias is an exceptional book.
Rating:
Summary: Bias, Indeed
Review: The only people who'll agree that the media still has a liberal bias are the ones who think that TV stations and newspapers owned by Fortune 500 companies are somehow staffed by radical Marxists. Please. The only true thing about this book is its title. Goldberg displays a tremendous bias of his own, and does an excellent job of distorting the news. If you truly think that Fox News is "fair and balanced" or that Rush Limbaugh gives reasoned accounts of today's news, then this book is for you. If you have a brain, however, steer clear.
Rating: 
Summary: Shaky Cross Between Memoir and Journalism
Review: It's not hard to figure out whether or not you'll like "Bias." Are you Conservative? Do you not get Fox News in your household? Yup, then this is your book. Bernard Goldberg, a fine TV journalist who particularly excels on HBO's "Real Sports," confirms all your worst fears. Yes, it's true! ABC, CBS, and NBC are out to get you, and your little dog, too! They'll phrase things in a way that's pure evil! They'll corrupt you and your children's minds if you watch too long, so beware! Or are you Liberal? Do you think Katie Couric is the world's most courageous journalist? Do you find "Access Hollywood" interviews to be truly in-depth? Think Phil Donahue is a paragon of objectivity? Then you'll think "Bias" is the worst book ever. All is does is complain about your favorite TV newspeople and personalities, and that's mean! Or are you like me, and could care less either way? If you are, then the glaring WRITING flaw of "Bias" comes to light only a few pages in. Is the book a memoir of Goldberg's observations on journalistic injustice? Or is it an objective journalistic piece itself? Turns out it wants to be both and ends up being neither. It's a rant book designed to create controversy, with Goldberg taking up a popular conservative viewpoint (that the mainstream media is horribly liberal and hateful of conservatives), and then trying to prove it through a series of personal experiences and/or statistical data. But it feels too vindictive. Goldberg slaps a nasty tag on his old superior, Dan Rather ("The Dan"), then rails against all the ways Rather distorted news reports to favor his own viewpoint. But it all has the feel of a get-back-at-your-boss revenge piece, and since no one with a resting pulse watches CBS News anyway, it's hard to see how it supports Goldberg's argument. Because Goldberg wants to tell his story and frame it within the context of a greater issue, the book strikes an uneasy balance that it can't withstand. Goldberg also asserts that many newsworthy stories go ignored by the media due to liberal bias, including the absence of mothers from the American household. Goldberg argues that this done so as not to offend a liberal target audience, but here's another idea why the media ignore it: it's boring, and it won't get ratings. Is that biased? Totally, but not in the way Goldberg wants you to believe. Media is distorted horribly by the influence of money and ego, but Goldberg doesn't explore all those avenues fully, and that makes it annoying. And so the book ends up being an argument against itself. If the media were super-liberal, would you need this big expose to prove it? Wouldn't it be readily apparent anyway? And if it were, wouldn't you automatically know that and change the channel? If it's liberal in hidden ways, then does it really matter? Many of his perceived slights (he takes great interest in how certain stories are worded) are either too small to ever notice or not worth noticing anyway. Seems hardly effective to begin with. In the end, "Bias" fails because it is designed to be predictable. Goldberg never plays the part of Devil's Advocate to counter his own viewpoint, and so the piece is, naturally, biased itself. There aren't many surprises; you know where he's heading. There are some sound observations in here - that journalists distort news for the sake of their own egos, that too often newscasters consider themselves or are considered above reproach, that hypocrites abound in the national media, that entertainment people try too often to be "newsy" - but they're overwhelmed by Goldberg's need to endorse a viewpoint lots of people readily love to agree with. How much more interesting would it have been for Goldberg to also expose right-leaning biases at Fox-owned media branches, in talk radio, and in the publishing world, and then figure out why no one can take a straight, objective viewpoint at all? Most folks wouldn't argue that broadcast network news tends to lean slightly to the left. But too often conservative pundits greatly exaggerate that slant in order to beat their own chests. They also perceive bias when their own viewpoint is not presented as much or in the way that they would like it. But that's not really bias. That's nitpicking. Either way, if you're a middle-of-the-road, normal Amercian, this book won't interest you. It does what it was designed to do, and that isn't a compliment.
Rating:
Summary: Yet Another Indictment
Review: Let me first proudly admit to being a conservative on most important issues. I like conservative magazines, conservative radio hosts, and conservative editorials. Why? Because they reinforce my conservative worldview. BUT, one thing I don't want dished up conservative is the news. That I want straight, just the facts, and I'll decide for myself. Why? Because I am not a knee-jerk conservative. If an issue interests me, I like to examine that issue from many sides so that I can decide it for myself without some news anchor trying to steer my thoughts in any one particular direction.
That's where Bias comes in. I gave up network news and "mainstream" US news magazines years ago. I get most of my news from a slightly left of center English news magazine that has more US news in it than the three leading US news magazines combined. I gave all those US news sources up because their bias against conservative ideas and personalities is palpable. They don't report news, they concoct stories and feed them to a trusting public.
I recently read Ann Coulter's book on media bias and it was what one expected to hear from a partisan conservative. But I wanted to hear from a liberal, too, and Goldberg's book satisfied that desire. He certainly gives the thoughtful reader much to ponder.
OK, yes he does whine a little bit about his treatment at CBS after he outed some of its newspeople as less than even-handed.
I understand that no organization likes an in-house whistleblower, even an organization that makes heroes out of whistleblowers in the wider world. I also understand that employers expect unquestioning loyalty of their employees. But Goldberg did a service to the country in showing how the only kind of diversity tolerated where he worked was diversity of outward characteristics, not diversity of thought and spirit. He shows how millions have been led to think about AIDS, homelessness, and politics in general in ways that are grounded solely in emotion rather than in reason.
While reading, the open-minded reader will quickly see the truth in Goldberg's allegations. And he tries very hard not to over-dramatize. After all, he remains an instinctive liberal. His sense of fairplay has led him to demur on naming several sources whose careers would be hurt by being politically outed, and thats the only real drawback to the book. Hey, I want names, dates, and places!
The most interesting chapter to me was entitled Liberal Hate Speech.Just imagine the liberal network employee hate quotes about conservatives coming from the mouth of a conservative network employee about liberals and then think about how long the conservative would remain employed.
Imagine John Stossel praising Pinochet on national TV for bringing stability to Chile and commenting that Allende had deserved his fate. Imagine! Imagine Cal Thomas' newspaper column saying that it would be great had the Clintons and Tom Daschle been on the plane with Paul Wellstone or on the plane with Mel Carnahan. Imagine!
Liberals regularly praise Castro and minimize the brutality of his regime, usually remarking on their health care system. Never mind that there is no freedom in Cuba and that their vaunted health care is a sham. Federal Penitentiaries have great health care too, but who wants to live in one?
I could go on for pages, but I'll close here by recommending Bias to interested readers as yet another indictment of our major media's failure to provide fair and balanced coverage of important news events.
Rating:
Summary: Through the Looking-Glass
Review: Media bias to the left? Amazing! Possibly, from Mussolini's point of view...
|
