Rating: 
Summary: Well researched, well written.
Review: While the title of this book may lead you to believe that this book is all about the inside of a newsroom. That is not entirely true, but it is close. Mr. Goldberg not only shows us why bias is apparent in the network news room he also picks certain topics(homeless, AIDS, man bashing...) and does a little investigative reporting of his own. I found all of the passages well written and they grabbed my interest. One thing to remember is that this book is not written by a right wing wacko. This is written by a democrat who never voted for Reagan or either Bush. This is just a man who was sick of seeing the slant and the hypocrisy that goes along with it. I recommend this to anyone who has even a passing interest in the news and how it is reported to the nation.
Thanks
T
Rating:
Summary: network news BIASED? surely not!
Review: i teach a unit on bias in my social studies classes and have always counted on dan rather's commentaries to provide practice for my students. so obviously i've known about the political slant of network tv for some time. i still found the book to be very informative and worth reading. he does repeat himself too much, and there seems to be a hint of resentment in some of the topics he brings up, but he provides a mostly informative read. is CBS the only biased network? after reading the book, grab the remote and find out for yourself. it could be an eye opener.....
Rating: 
Summary: The Truth Hurts...
Review: I had heard much about this book, but I could not for the life of me rememer who Bernard Goldberg was. Then along came C-SPAN and cleared up this little mystery. After watching Mr. Goldberg on C-SPAN, I decided I must buy this book. I didn't know for sure what I was going to get myself into. Many people, from the left, called Bernard a traitor and closet right wing republican. Benard is a self proclaimed traditional liberal. So I was curious as to how the book wouild end up reading.Generally, I enjoyed the book rather well. Bias makes a very important case, detailing how liberal bias is controling the media today and how this is not some conspiracy, but rather the influence of very liberal editors controlling the news and what we see. Bias provides some very good examples and clearly demonstrates how the media tilts strongly to the left. What is more important is how Bias explains that a tilt towards a conservative bend is not needed, but rather how the job of a journalist is not to give opinons. Rather the job of a journalist is to report the news, something that is lacking in current media circles. My only complaint is that you get the feeling there are some hard feelings between Bernard Goldberg, Dan Rather and the CBS news conglomerate. This is expected considering they ran Golberg out of town. However, I believes he devalues some of his very well explained arguments by spending too much time attacking Dan Rather. In the end, it is a very good book and reads fairly quickly. I would recommend this book to anybody who has an open mind. If your far left or far right you may find some problems with what is said, but again that is the point of Bias.
Rating: 
Summary: excellent information backing up what we already know
Review: This is a great book from a media insider that is not written to "bash" liberals but only to show the overwhelming facts of media bias. The only readers that would be offended by this book are the media "elite" themselves or those that prefer a liberal media. The reviewers that have given this book low ratings because they believe it to be "liberal bashing" are not being honest with themselves or you. Of course, that is what you'd expect from a liberal.
Rating: 
Summary: Sadly disappointing
Review: On the basis of the comments from those who recommended this book to me, I was looking forward to a good read based on good journalism where statements would be backed up by multiple sources and specific examples. What I was left with, was a personal diatribe of personally directed insults, insinuations, and one-sided interpretations of the author's personal conversations or experiences with a small number of people within one organization. There are one or two interesting examples. On the whole, however, this book ultimately comes across as the ranting of a spoiled child who wasn't taken seriously by his elders. Some of this was downright funny. I was disappointed by the heavy use of a limited number of personal anecdotes, and the scarcity of documented and referenced examples from a wide cross section of the US media. This book falls far short of making a case for a widespread liberal bias in the media. If you are looking for a rigorous analysis of the misuse of media in this country, don't look here. There are better-informed, more professional authors who have been examining this subject for over 20 years.
Rating:
Summary: ... Now this breaking news...
Review: If, after reading this book, you can watch one of the evening news, and not see anything wrong with it, most likely you haven't paid attention.
I didn't believe my own eyes and ears. Even now, years after the original publication of this book, bias is present in the media, as if the book has not changed anything. To notice it however, you must put your political views aside, and you've got to keep your mind open.
Journalists are supposed to relay the news, the whole news good or bad, just as it is, not as they [journalists] see it. The only people who disagree are the liberals, who as Mr. Goldberg put it: "don't see anything wrong with it."
Buy it, read it, you won't be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: A very important, UNBIASED, look at bias in the media
Review: There is bias in the news media, but unlike what some right-wingers propose, it has nothing to do with deliberate slanting. As Mr. Goldberg shows, the truth is far worse ... it's all unintentional. The news media is so left-winged that they consider liberal groups so "mainstream" that they routinely use them and reference them as "informed, learned sources." On the rare occasions that right-of-liberal groups are referenced they are labeled as "conservative", "right-wing", or worse. Mr. Goldberg presents tons of evidence from numerous descriptions from transcripts to frequency of certain stories or types of stories in the media. I think the book runs a little long and the last half to a third basically continues the first half to two-thirds, just adding more concrete details. The audio edition also came with an interview with the author that added some fresh material, particularly dealing with feedback about this book. The only significant downside to the book is the way Mr. Goldberg several times mentions the fact that the TV news media takes its cues from the newspaper news (NY Times, Washington Post, etc) but then no suggestion is made about how to address that problem.
Rating: 
Summary: Bias is biased -WARNING!
Review: The tome was full of innuendo and alluded to facts that never seemed to be soundly supported. If you want to read tales of covert commiseration, this is for you. If you like the bright spotlight of truth shown upon smoke-filled room back slapping, this will be rewarding for you. However, if you like supported, sound, factual argumentation -this is a dud.
Rating:
Summary: Has Credibility Issues..
Review: In "Bias," Glodberg states his case against the oft-debated liberal slant in American news stories. While I do support the argument Goldberg presents, I see many flaws in the ways he chooses to present his information. He quotes people without telling us who they were, or he does disclose their name as he tells the reader that the source said to Goldberg that he or she would deny the claims. Further, the book becomes so focused upon what Goldberg defending his peaceful relationship with CBS anchorman Dan Rather -who Goldberg disses, on average, at least once per page- that a skeptical reader can't help but feel that there's more to Goldberg's personal feelings about the media than he presents. The overall feeling of the book is a comfortable, down-home style. Goldberg presents himself as the all-American everyman who wants only fairness in his news; and apparently, the American everyman is very fond of one-sentence paragraphs. On top of providing an extremely limited sample of actual biased liberal information in the news source, Goldberg seems unable to comprehend that paragraphs should be at least 4-5 sentences long. As a result, the book comes off choppy, with an over effort at appearing kitschy and down-to-earth. As proof of our biased information system, Goldberg chooses to illustrate a few quotes from -gasp, shock!- Dan Rather. Rather is quoted as saying something along the lines of not thinking that most journalists lean either right or left consistently, so Goldberg provides us a wonderful poll demonstrating that the majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic. This argument is really not that sound- identifying more with one party than the other does not necessarily mean a person consistently votes along certain party lines. If anything, American political parties have become disturbingly similar in their policies, and dissatisfaction with BOTH parties leads many to split their voting ballots. By telling you that I am a liberal, it does not mean I would never vote for a Republican, and I suspect American journalists- like the rest of the country -usually feel the same way. Likewise, Goldberg, who seems to embrace (or imply that he embraces) neoconservative ideals throughout the text states that he has never voted for a Republican president. Thus, Goldberg's synopsis of Rather's comment seems self-conflicting, to say the least. To Goldberg's credit, the book is very entertaining, and I do recommend reading it. Despite the fact that most of the book feels more like a personal attack on Dan Rather (and an implicit slander of CBS) than an investigate expose, Goldberg makes a few good points about the media. The media's "prettification" of the homeless, the cashing in of evening news magazines, and the media's desire to cater to specific majority populations are all interesting points worth investigating. All in all, it's worth reading. But follow Goldberg's own advice and consider the motives that the author may have in presenting his case against America's media elites.
Rating:
Summary: Another Poorly Written Attack Book
Review: Goldberg serves up a foul-mouthed screed in the ever-escalating liberal vs. conservative book wars. Like recent works by Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore, "Bias" is the intellectual equivalent of pro-wrestling; an entertaining fiction at best. "Bias" is simply more unsubstantiated and already refuted drivel to feed an audience starving for affirmation of its baser prejudices. In this case the drivel is dished out in a flavor suited to the palate of only the most partisan of conservatives. If the reader prefers, there is no shortage of liberal drivel available from authors of the other persuasion. If Goldberg's point is that Dan Rather is a self-possessed tyrant, this is not news. If the point of Goldberg's effort is to perpetuate the myth of liberal media bias (like communists putting fluoride in our drinking water or the government controlling our weather) he adds nothing substantive to the discussion. Nearly 70 pages of "Bias" concern Goldberg's 1996 editorial in the Wall Street Journal and what he regarded as the hostile response he received from his colleagues. The CBS story cited in Goldberg's WSJ opinion piece focused Steve Forbes' flat tax proposal. Goldberg's assertions that this story had a liberal bias comes off as ridiculous if one takes the time to review the actual transcripts of the CBS story which included quotes from Newt Gingrich and interviews with former Republican presidential advisers. Citing the details of the CBS story would have undercut Goldberg's tenuous argument which explains why Goldberg avoided including a transcript in this book. The books other "facts" are even less well researched and more poorly presented. The point of attack books like "Bias" is not to provide objective analysis but to distort factual information. Simply put, books like "Bias" set out to play on the persecution complex of the reader. "They are all out to get us so we have a right to our anger!" Rather than praise yet another book that fans the flames of anger using utter nonsense, may I suggest both sides in this misbegotten struggle take a time out. Then again, given the money to be made by appealing to the angels of our lesser selves I hold out little hope for a cease-fire.
|
