Rating: 
Summary: Opinion not based on fact
Review: Goldberg's book has cause quite a stir. However, the book is little more than a trashing of Dan Rather and a manifesto by an angry ex-employee. If the author wants to examine bias,he should do so in a more systematic, scientific fashion. For example, he could have analyzed news broadcasters use of certain buzzwords or count the number of stories that leaned liberal or leaned conservative. Anyone who wants an unbiased view of this debate should shy away from this rant.
Rating: 
Summary: Educational
Review: This was a very educational book and doesn't pool any punches. The only down side was the constant references to Wall Street Journal editoral that he wrote that was the motivation for the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Bernard Grinds His Axe on Dan Rather's Nose
Review: Don't waste your time with this one. Its all about a personal vendetta. The book is not well-documented and the writing is fragmented at best. If you are interested in the topic, opt for Coloring the News by William McGowan. You will be much more impressed with McGowan's documentation and broad scope. Don't just take my word for it: read the reviews for Coloring the News here on amazon.com and let that convince you.
Rating: 
Summary: Success! It makes the reader think
Review: The highest praise I can give to a book or any piece of writing or art is that it makes you think, and sometimes disagree with the writer. That is exactly the how "Bias" plays out. There are some points that Mr. Goldberg makes that are logical, well thought out and should be agreeable to most, whether you are liberal, conservative or a martian. I encourage all to read this book, especially those who are more democratic than republican or who do not believe the media has a bias.The main problem I have that keeps this from being an excellent book is that Mr. Goldberg claims that he knows what "liberals" think and want. I lost count of the number of times where he stated as fact that "liberals" aspire to some terrible, non-sensical political or social objectives. Rather than tell me what others think, I am much more intrigued with what he thinks, and the progression of his thoughts. If he would stay on that course, the book would have received five stars, but as it is, I feel that he spent too much time pandering to those in his book's target audience, the far right.
Rating:
Summary: Take a pill...
Review: While an honest expose into the world of broadcast media, _Bias_ is at times vitriolic and inflammatory. It is ironic that Bernard Goldberg expouses objective representation of events, yet his own judgment should be questioned by his own biases. He should take some of the medicine he prescribes. Nonetheless, it is a fine book that media skeptics would enjoy and the naive media-ne'er-do-wrong should be compelled to read.
Rating:
Summary: Bias: Intruiging but Shallow
Review: Bias is the extended version of an editorial that Goldberg wrote in the Wall Street Journal in February 1996. In the editorial, he dissected a particular CBS news story to point out its blatant liberal bias. The fallout from the editorial was devastating to Goldberg's career and five years later he quit and moved to HBO. Although he claims otherwise, Goldberg quite clearly has a very large axe that he viciously grinds into the reputations of bigwigs in CBS as well as into other 'liberal' newsmen; Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw in particular come in for harsh treatment. Disappointingly, Goldberg descends to the level of cheap potshots and spiteful jibes far too often.
Although his emphasis on his own life and struggle against the media elites distracts the reader from the intellectual validity and persuasiveness of his argument, Goldberg does present some sound analysis. He repeatedly shows how the media pointedly identifies conservatives as conservatives but does not do the same with liberals. For instance, when broadcasting the Clinton impeachment, Peter Jennings ensured that his audience knew which senators were conservative but did not say a word about which ones were liberal. Goldberg's comparison of the portrayal of homelessness in America under a Democratic and a Republican President is compelling. He argues that the number of stories about homelessness under Republican Presidents (Reagan and the two Bushes) has been disproportionately greater than under the Clinton administration, which leads to perceptions that homelessness was less of a problem under Clinton. So too with issues such as heterosexual AIDS, the victimization of men by feminist groups, and (the most powerful of them all) race, Goldberg argues convincingly that reporters simply regurgitate the propaganda of pressure groups they favor and emphasize political correctness over honest reporting of facts.
However, Goldberg exhibits some naiveté when he discusses the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the Israel/Palestine conflict. He clearly takes the bait of George Bush's "freedom and democracy" "axis of evil" rhetoric without realizing just how hooked such a bait may be. Although he accuses his liberal media of not questioning their own biases, he clearly exhibits a pro-Israel stance in his discussion of the Israel/Palestine dispute. Given that almost any news headline about the dispute in the 'liberal' New York Times cites the number of Israelis killed in the opening paragraph and the number of Palestinians killed several paragraphs later, Goldberg's argument that the news media ignores Arab excesses is tenuous. As he goes about "connecting the dots to terrorism", Goldberg never mentions the pivotal American role in third world politics, especially in the Middle East. International issues clearly occupy a peripheral place in Goldberg's case and he should have stuck to his own turf; but the superficiality of his treatment of important international issues weakness his overall argument because it taints his overall analytical ability. Goldberg provides no documentation at all and seems to expect to be taken on faith. On an issue so charged with varying agendas, it is asking too much to be simply taken on faith.
Also, at no point does Goldberg address the issue of corporate control of the media. Yet Westinghouse, hardly a corporation famed for environmental or peace-promoting activities, owns CBS. As a former employee of CBS, Goldberg is an intriguing position from where to view corporatization of the media and it is frustrating that he never addresses this widely expressed perspective. Overall, the book is intruiging but intellectually superficial. Pick it up second-hand or from your library but don't waste your money buying it new.
Rating:
Summary: Poor Bernie fell of the gravy train, and it hurts!
Review: What nonsense! Bernie Goldberg rode the gravy train and enjoyed his limelight for decades. It didn't occur to him to complain then.
Now that he's lost his job and has an axe to grind, he's moaning and groaning. That's double standards, Bernie!
This writer still believes the news media is a lot more credible than most politicians, liberals or, especially, conservative, because the latter are usually in the pockets of the rich and powerful.
Goldberg fell out with his colleagues as well as his employers and, regardless of who was at fault (and, reading his book, one would have to think that everyone else was), he should accept his consequences.
Rating:
Summary: Where's the substance?
Review: No index, no bibliography, no source footnotes -- if this reflects Goldberg's idea of journalism, then it's no wonder TV news is so pathetic and shallow. This is one flimsy book -- more of a personal rant about how Bernard Goldberg feels CBS (and other former colleagues) mistreated him than a critique of bias in the news biz. As a writer for several urban daily newspapers over the last 20 years or so (I wouldn't call myself a "reporter," exactly, because I do features, arts criticism, and opinion pieces), I am keenly aware of the many ways, blatant and insidious, that the "news" is spun and slanted for the "consumer." (Marketing says we don't have readers, or even viewers, anymore -- just swallowers of "info-tainment" product.) I was excited to read what Goldberg had to say -- but, unfortunately, he fails to substantiate his charges or build any convincing case. (And, no, repeatedly stating that "everybody [except Dan Rather] knows" that the press has a liberal bias, is not sufficient evidence.) Aside from a few semi-juicy anectdotes (told and re-told to pad out a thin manuscript to book-length), he's woefully short on specific information, offers virtually no evidence to back up his charges, and frequently confuses opinion pieces with straight reporting to suit his thesis. What a disappointment. He makes one good point (even if he doesn't bother to support it): Journalists, by nature, tend to be educated, curious, skeptical-but-idealistic, post-Watergate types who move in liberal/intellectual circles and, therefore, don't even realize how liberal they are. (They tend to think of themselves as moderates.) That suffuses their reporting, unintentionally or not -- which is why (he argues) that TV anchors always seem to identify certain groups as "right-wing_ or "conservative," but rarely label others as "left-wing" or "liberal" (especially since George H.W. Bush made "the L word" a dirty word). Goldberg cites some opinion polls, but "bias" isn't something that can be proven by polling viewer perceptions. The question is not whether people THINK the news is biased (if they didn't notice it, would that mean it's not there?), but HOW is that bias influencing the reporting. From the very beginning, Goldberg rather densely confuses editorial pieces with hard news, from his criticism of a CBS News "Reality Check" segment (a recurring series of analytical/personal columns by Eric Engberg, not presented as straight news reporting), to his praise of FOX's Bill O'Reilly as the consummate network newsman. (Goldberg seems unaware that O'Reilly is not a news-show anchor like Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings, but is a [proudly conservative] pundit like Rush Limbaugh or one of those "Crossfire" guys. "No-Spin Zone"? Yeah, RIGHT.) And he commits several other howlers, like complaining that the New York Times hasn't covered the topic of media bias ... and then citing several New York Times investigative articles that reported bias in the news. He also cites claims by organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, without ever mentioning their right-wing political agendas. A real reporter should take up this story and dig up some hard evidence about the extent of left-wing AND right-wing bias in the media (there's plenty of both -- especially on cable news channels). Goldberg's book may be a best-seller, but it's the equivalent of a TV newscast -- too insubstantial to do justice to its subject.
Rating:
Summary: No Contest in The Media Liberal Bias
Review: I didn't read the book but I'm just annoyed at irritating Liberals giving this book 1 star and claiming that the news is not Liberal but in fact Conservative. Forget the content just one secondg and look at the people telling you the news; that should be enough for you to ascertain the liberal bias. The fact that the Liberal Networks insist on looking near and far to find some Black that doesn't speak Ebonics or some Asian without a Chinese accent to bring you the news is proof enough of their Liberal, Multi-Cultural Diversity campaign. Here's the another hint: the rest of their programming! Its always makes whites look like idiots or "haters".
Rating: 
Summary: This will help you be a better user of the news
Review: Reading this book will help you become a better user of the media. You will become a better watcher of news programs and a more careful reader of newspapers and magazines of opinion. Mr. Goldberg does us a real service by taking us into the information industry with an insiders eyes and understanding. He writing style is simple and effective so the book is quite an easy and VERY interesting read. However, if you are a Republican looking for confirmation of a left-wing conspiracy this isn't the book for you. Mr. Goldberg's point is much more subtle than that. He repeats several times in different ways that the news professionals do NOT purposefully go hard on the GOP and soft on the Democrats. What they do they do because they are blind to how far off the center they are. In fairness, this is part of the human condition. Most of us have friends to the left of us and friends to the right of us so we can easily fall in the trap of thinking we are in the middle, that we are moderate, that we are mainstream. Almost none of us really are. One of the limitations of the human condition is our truncated experience and understanding of reality. We have to work very hard to extend our reference points beyond the range of our life's experiences and most people simply don't spend that much energy on that project. This is the source of the liberal bias in the media, according to Mr. Goldberg (if I am reading him correctly). Rather, Brokaw, Jennings, the NY Times, and Washington Post (and others) BELIEVE they are mainstream and do not seek any evidence to the contrary. They simply believe all those Red States are way to the right and never stop to think that being in the middle means being in the middle of the WHOLE range of views and opinions and not just your own life's experiences or those of your associates. Anyway, I think you will gain a lot from the book. The time investment won't be large and it will give you some good thinking material, if you care to use it that way, no matter if you are on the left or the right. You might really be in the middle not many people are really there. The math says so. Most of us are somewhere on a continuum to one side or the other, and we might be on different sides on different issues. It always helps to challenge yourself by seeking out serious views different than your own and wrestle with them. This book provides a healthy dose of that for both sides if they will read it thoughtfully rather than bringing their preconceptions to it and simply look for confirmation.
|
