Rating: 
Summary: changed my outlook!!!
Review: This book is a must-read for anyone who watches TV news or reads the newspaper.
We are so fortunate to live in a country that allows anyone to say anything. What most of us viewers/readers don't understand, is that objectivity practically doesn't exist. That's fine, except that we should know the bias of the people reporting the "facts"
This book gave me the skills to be more discerning in what I learn from the mainstream media, to question who is telling me this, and what their agenda is.
If you care about truth, you have to read this
Rating: 
Summary: Bernard Goldberg has some great stories to tell...
Review: ...and someday he'll write a great book--if he ever gets over his anger at Dan, Tom, Peter, CBS, liberals, right-wingers, and anyone else who doesn't share his view of reality.So, the media are liberal. Big surprise. Big deal. Nowhere in the book does Goldberg, despite his vast tv experience, seem to accept the fact that network news is a business: if television (and other media) have a liberal slant, if tv news is sensationalist, if stories tend to focus on attractive victims rather than ugly, scarred ones--that's because that's the news that sells. The name of the game is ratings; low ratings, no advertisers. No advertisers, no money. No money, no salary for people like Goldberg. But back to the book. I almost gave up during the first two chapters because of Goldberg's telegraphic style. He makes points. Like this. Supposed to be profound. They aren't. Just hard to read. He seems to be reaching for that elusive Murrow-esque bon mot, but by the time page 25 rolls around, he's settled into his routine of whining about everything and everybody that led to his getting canned by CBS after 30 years. From a reader's perspective, Goldberg's casus belli does seem a trifle odd. One day in 1996 he wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal in which he vilified a colleague and "longtime friend" for smirking at the tax proposal of then-presidential candidate Steve Forbes. The editorial (reprinted in the appendix) seems more like a personal attack than a reasoned discussion of liberal bias. Perhaps if Goldberg had attempted the latter rather than the former, he would have kept his job. The book isn't long--a little over 200 pages--but even Goldberg can't churn out enough anti-media rhetoric to fill that space. So instead he trots out all the old tired anti-liberal (working moms are bad!) anti-tv (situation comedies breed racism and bash males) arguments, buttressing his claims with whatever statistics he can find. <Bernard: statistical analysis is not your forte. You're much more interesting when you stick to telling stories.> One anecdote in the final chapter(entitled Newzak...get it?) encapsulates the spirit of the entire book: Goldberg recounts a visit from Fidel Castro to CBS in 1995. Dan Rather, he says wistfully, treated Castro like an old buddy--even gave him a gift. "Castro--who locks people up if they look at him funny--The Dan embraces. Me--I write a little op-ed piece calling the media elites a bunch of lefties, and--he'll 'never' forgive." I did give the book two stars rather than one because of Goldberg's storytelling talents. Now, if he'd just get over his anger and step off that soapbox...
Rating:
Summary: The Whistle is Blown!
Review: Bernard Goldberg's revelations are not earth shattering to most Americans who are well aware that the Media is biased to the left. What is amazing are the examples and statistics he has compiled in building his case. Even the New York Times calls Goldberg's analysis "air tight." I found the way Goldberg weaves his analysis with personal stories about how he was blackballed by his colleagues to be a bit distracting and unnecessarily defensive in tone, but understandable! However, the strength of his facts and analysis stand on its own. Definitely worth reading!
Rating: 
Summary: Don't Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story
Review: 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 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: Great intellectual ammunition...
Review: This book is a very quick read, but what it lacks in bulk it makes up for in well-aimed criticisms of Network News. Goldberg points out many examples of how the networks consistantly intrude liberal views into their nightly programs. His style is easy to read although at times he uses humor in a somewhat distracting way. A more straightforward presentation would have been a bit more effective. With that said, Goldberg does make an excellent case and is dead-on when it comes to his assessment that networks refuse to "connect the dots" when they think it might portray their own liberal views in a bad light. I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants a behind the scenes look at the network news industry and what drives it.
Rating:
Summary: A good book . . . . once you get past Goldberg's ego.
Review: I'll confess that I didn't have to be sold on the claim that there's a liberal bias in the media. Thus Bernard Goldberg was reinforcing rather than challenging personal biases. Nevertheless, the book presents some interesting insights into how stories are covered, particularly the spread of AIDS, homelessness, and 9/11. Interestingly, a breed of racism among producers of TV news magazine shows (Dateline NBC, 48 Hours, etc.) is revealed quite convincingly in that the ultimate audience is a white one, and no blacks need be shown, especially during "sweeps week." Goldberg's problem is with his own "woe is me" attitude that permeates the book, especially the first few chapters. He revels in the image of himself as the David versus the Goliath of CBS, Dan Rather, ABC, the New York Times, and nearly everyone else in the major news networks and papers. Whistleblowers (which Goldberg clearly sees himself as) are unfortunately driven by ego and a yearning for attention as much as by principle, and Goldberg is no exception. It is a shame that his writing style for this book is overly informal, sarcastic, and checkered with unnecessary generalizations. A more scholarly, objective, and less "biased" style would have added tremendous credibility to this book. As it is, he gives his own critics plenty of cheap ammunition with which to shoot down his otherwise legitimate claims.
Rating:
Summary: What's worse than being deliberately biased?
Review: This book is extremely valuable in how it demonstrates the reasons behind the news media's apparent bias to the left. The problem is, Goldberg makes media practitioners out to be worse than they'd be if they really did just work as an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party. Many on the right suspect the top news organizations are just doing their part to help their team's agenda. They suspect that the mainstream media is dominated by smart, savvy practitioners who work hand-in-glove with the political segment of the Left while making sure the actual links remain deniable. However, by making out such a strong case for a bias based on worldview, Goldberg portrays the American media elites as vacuous, dangerously ignorant, abnormally unselfconscious, and afflicted with a depth of arrogance you might associate with pre-revolution French aristocracy. That's the only reason I give the book four stars instead of five. Goldberg gives us invaluable insights, but strikes me occasionally as working a little too hard to keep his charges confined to professional incompetence. It's as if he wants to avoid worse accusations.
Rating:
Summary: Easy read -- tells you what you already suspected
Review: Goldberg writes in the easy style of the TV news. The book is clear and understandable without difficulty -- even while also watching Fox News (as most non-liberal, middle class people are doing nowadays). Goldberg hammers on the New York-based media elites for being out of touch; for being totally immersed in their own little worlds. For them, any conservative is labeled immediately as a dangerous right-winger. Liberals, however, are mainstream and are not identified as such because, to the media elites, liberals are unremarkable -- just folks like they are. Goldberg's book is important. It shows why the media think the way they do -- why their cultural biases are so ingrained -- why they don't even think they are biased at all. In the end, the book made me cheer for cable TV and free market competition. The big three networks have been losing audience share by the boatloads for years now. Alternative sources of news have been rapidly gaining audience share (such as Fox News and talk radio). Advertiser dollars will soon follow. Within less than a decade, the big three will either reform, or be left to broadcast their slanted view of the world to a tiny audience on a minuscule budget.
Rating:
Summary: Bernard Goldberg is Brilliant (and Honest!!)
Review: This book is one of my all time favorites. Yes, I enjoy O'Reilly too, but this book hits the mark. It confirms all my impressions of Dan Rather (in particular) and how the big three networks run their newscasts. This book shows why more and more people are turning to programs like Fox News to get an unbiased account of the day's events. Like Goldberg says, Rather, Jennings & Brokaw really don't think they are blatant liberals...they think they truly are "middle of the road" reporters....so not true and Goldberg effectively points out numerous instances of their bias (and how these guys are so quick to point out when one of their guests is a "conservative", yet never use the term liberal when referring to the majority of their guests which are, in fact, blatant liberals). A great read that makes you wonder how the big three networks get away with the stuff they do. I'll take Fox News anyday ("We Report, You Decide")....Enjoy the book....it is a great read that you won't be able to put down!!
Rating:
Summary: The Truth Hurts
Review: This book was simply outstanding from both content as well as readability. The author is very good. He turns the 60 Minutes microscope on CBS News and they don't like it at all. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I will never watch prime time news again in the same light. Here's to success with the more balanced news from FOX.
| 
