Rating: 
Summary: Food for thought.
Review: I bought this book fully expecting to find myself flinging it across the room as my "left-wing liberal" sensibilities became inflamed. Instead, Mr. Goldberg opened my eyes to an entirely different view of things. As a journalism major in college, at the age of fifty, I find myself firmly entrenched in the exact space occupied by the network television news media. Inspite of Mr. Goldberg's apparent animus toward CBS News, in general, and Dan Rather, in particular, he proceeds to illustrate, in a well thought out argument, that there is indeed a slant to network news. He points out that this is not the result of a vast "left-wing" conspiracy, but rather a result of the view of the world that is held by most journalists. Mr. Goldberg brings into question why a pundit supporting an idea on the right must be labelled a "conservative" when an opinion coming fron the left rarely, if ever, gets tagged as "liberal". Mr. Goldberg's purpose, in his initial editorial and this book, is to bring about a discussion, perhaps a soul searching within the media itself. What he got instead was that the messenger was killed and the message was quickly swept under the carpet. I liked this book and found myself murmuring in agreement often. This book is recommended reading for "liberals" and "conservatives" alike. Thanks for helping me open my eyes, Mr. Goldberg!
Rating: 
Summary: GOOD BUT INCOMPLETE
Review: Back in the late 1960s or early 1970s some TV advertising writer (whose name I cannot remember) wrote "I Can Sell You Anything". This was an expose on the advertising industry. Even today, more than 25 years after it was written, I can still watch commercials and see many of the same gimmicks and buzz words that he identified as part of the advertising medium. In other words, the book had little impact upon television advertising.Will the same be true with "Bias"? As I have told many of my colleagues, I scarcely need a 200+ page book to tell me the major networks news programs are biased. Bernard Goldberg gave some intriguing examples to drive home his point. He professes to be a liberal (he has never voted for a Republican for president -- fair enough, I have never voted for a Democrat) and most of his views are opposite of mine. However, our differences in mind, I must raise a few points. 1. I found it hard to believe that Eric Engberg's ridiculous criticism of Steve Forbes' Flat Tax proposal was what finally drove Bernard Goldberg over the edge. Engberg's "Reality Check" was certainly out of line, but it was not the first time a news program strayed out of line, nor was it the worst example. Although I, too, was skeptical of the Flat Tax proposal, it was a legitimate issue that should have been treated legitimately. 2. On page 54 Goldberg writes that although there was cultural bias when he first started in journalism in the 1960s and 70s, he cannot remember seeing bias in the news. However, that changed when Ronald Reagan moved into the White House. If he wanted to limit the scope to the 1980s through the present as that is the time period most memorable for the intended audience, fine. I can understand that. But to say that there was no bias in the news before 1980 is as laughable as Dan "The Dan" Rather saying there is no liberal bias in the news today. Examples: 2A. Although Barry Goldwater had virtually no chance in 1964 he was still the nominee of one of the two major parties. How many major party nominees have had their sanity actually questioned as a cover story of a major national magazine? Also, although the 1964 GOP convention was rowdy, journalists act as though they were treated in the same manner that Jews might have been treated at a Nazi Nuremburg rally in the 1930s. 2B. The news media turned on the Johnson Administration and the Vietnam conflict. The media is proud of its contribution to the journalism profession for their reporting and influence over public opinion during that era. However, the same media shies away from accepting any blame for the final outcome. There was plenty of blame to go around about how Vietnam was handled and the media certainly earned its share of blame. Then the media had the audacity to whine when the Department of Defense instituted tighter controls on the media during DESERT STORM. 2C. Does Mr. Goldberg really think the news media was driven by noble desires when they went after the Nixon Administration both before and during Watergate? The media hated Nixon with a passion (the feeling was mutual) and went into a feeding frenzy when Watergate blew up. Even today, the Washington Post gleefully condemns Nixon with each new release of Nixon tapes. But as they point out Nixon's obsessions they fail to recognize their own obsession with a man who has been dead for almost eight years. The same media (although different reporters) that deified those who investigated the Nixon Administration demonized those who investigated the Clinton Administration. These are just a few examples of pre-Ronald Reagan bias that Goldberg did not notice. There were more that others could cite. 3. Bernard Goldberg referenced a news story in the mid 1990s about chain gangs in Alabama. He did not take the reference in the direction I thought he could have. He raised the legitimate point that CBS, after the story aired, found fault that of the 20 inmates shown, 19 were black. I thought he could have also pointed out that the story ridiculed this southern state for its "primitive" practice within its prison system. By ridiculing Alabama, the media was also ridiculing millions of Americans outside the state and the south that probably thought chain ganging violent criminals was a pretty good idea. There were various other examples that could have been cited including the media treatment of the Bush campaigns of 1988 (Bush won anyway) and 1992 (that brought us the most corrupt administration of the 20th century); the attacks on the special prosecutor investigating the Clinton Administration; the attacks on the Republican-controlled Congress for pursuing its "vast right wing conspiracy" all the way to an impeachment that had virtually no chance of succeeding; the treatment of conservative Dan Quayle as a flake while treating his liberal successor, Al Gore, as a legitimate political leader (although the media did criticize Gore for some of his less than legitimate claims), etc, etc. However, Mr. Goldberg may have wanted to keep the book down to a reasonable size as opposed to turning out a multi-volume condemnation of his chosen profession. There was so much more he might have done with the book but once he had gotten his point across, adding much more may have been piling on. For the reasons stated above I debated about giving the "Bias" either four stars or five. I finally decided on five stars because despite the issues cited above, "Bias" was still a very readable, informative, and entertaining book. I hope that one day an insider will provide the public a similar expose on the entertainment industry.
Rating:
Summary: The Final Nail in the Network News Coffin
Review: A brillant mixture of well documented, factual research and first hand observation. Why are the nightly network news broadcasts losing viewers at such an astounding rate? Because fewer and fewer mainstream Americans trust them. Mr. Goldberg does a terrific job of explaining exactly why the networks do not deserve their trust.
As you read through more of these reviews, be aware of two oft repeated lies used by those who don't want the truth contained in this book to reach more of the politically uniformed. The first lie is that Mr. Goldberg has a right-wing political agenda. Mr. Goldberg is a life-long democrat who has never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. He is a card-carrying old-school liberal. Unlike ultra-leftist hate-mongers such as Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, Mr. Goldberg had no political axe to grind in writing his book. The Second lie is that this is an attack piece on "The Dan" Rather. The book contains more examples of "The Dan's" elitist arrogance simply because "The Dan" is the member of the unholy trinity (Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings) with whom Mr. Goldberg is the most familiar.
In conclusion, only the most closed minded, left wing hate mongers have anything to fear from this book. Conservatives will be deservedly vindicated. Moderates and rational thinking liberals will be enlightened.
Rating: 
Summary: Goldberg Should Title His Book "Goldberg's Bias"
Review: This review will be short as I do not wish to repeat the considerable criticism of
"Bias" that has been given by other reviewers. My problem with this book is that
Goldberg offers no research to back up his claims.
Rating:
Summary: Just doesn't hold up
Review: A very sloppy book. Logic is very weak (claims media is liberal biased, then relates stories that show it's ONLY about ratings, or shows the media - like the public - are left and right, depending on the issue). He makes lots of "Can you imagine..." claims, which are of course pretty meaningless. Makes some claims of events but they are usually hearsay or involve people no longer available to verify them. The few "facts" he claims that can be checked don't agree with him. Example - he claims "liberal" newspapers identify conservative politicians but don't mention when a politician is liberal. In fact, a researcher has already done a Lexis search of the top 20 newspapers (NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post among them) going back five years checking references to ten top liberal/ten top conservative politicians. Result - politicans were 30% more likely to be called "liberal Democrat" than "conservative Republican" (the reverse of Goldberg's claim). And if you substitute less known politicians, it gets even worse (liberals twice as likely to be flagged than conservatives). He must be a very bitter man for some reason, but for a journalist, his arguments are weak at best and poorly researched/documented.
Rating:
Summary: An honest attempt in a dishonest profession
Review: In simple words, Bernard Goldberg appears to be an honest professional who was comfortable in his own skin and was jolted out of his routine by a callous and insulting act by someone whom he considered a peer. His first scathing rebuke of the liberal media establishment started the vicious cycle that culminated in the writing of his book. As a catharsis, it doesn't seem to be justified, but as a true recollection of the events that caused him to leave the profession where he had obviously excelled for years, it works on several levels. Goldberg successfully imparts astonishment at his own naivete, as well as the absolute intractable disassociation with the public that the media elitists suffer from. Not only does he take the reader through his quite respectable career, but he also does a good job in temporarily suspending the pain that he must have felt as a sudden pariah. Goldberg clearly, and with some bias of his own, exposes the liberal media establishment as a virulent form of oppresion of the truth, while being able to still take some of the blame for this perpetuation. A good read throughout, it is difficult to even conceive of watching the network news channels without seeing the petty meglomaniacs behind the mask.
Rating:
Summary: Much needed, but....
Review: "Bias", by former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg, is a book that has certainly needed to be written, and I would hope that folks from all political persuasions would be open minded enough to listen to what Mr. Goldberg has to say. BUT! If you're looking for an exceptionally well-written book, one that has tremendous literary oomph, I believe "Bias" will disappoint you; it did me. Mr. Goldberg is not the next coming of H. L. Mencken (or Thomas Friedman, for that matter), but he never has claimed to be. He just wants the truth to come out, it seems to me. Good enough.
Rating: 
Summary: Doesn't Regnery Employ Editors?
Review: Bernard Goldberg has written a bad book about an interesting and important topic. It reads like something that was rushed to print and completely unedited. I agree with his premise that the newsroom has become so insular there's no reason to assume that journalists understand how biased they've become. Unfortunately his hyperbolic style, obvious personal grudges, sloppy writing, and lack of coherent structure weaken his case. The messenger almost killed the message.
Rating:
Summary: Adios, Dan!
Review: I finished this book and fired off an email to Dan Rather, entitled "Adios, Dan." It read to me like Goldberg was angry; but who wouldn't be? He is known to be a liberal, had to have been a team player, and still was let go from the "good ol' boys' club." My disappointment was that it read a little like the check-out stand tabloids. Content was titilating in the table of contents and failed to deliver much substance in the actual chapter. I experienced this same disappointment with Leslie Stahl's autobiography in that it seemed to neutralize content that could have been gossip-column juicy and expository. I imagine with fingers to point and names to name, books like this have to walk a fine line between commentary and libel. It made me intensely dislike a grudge-holding Dan Rather, who has lost the courage and passion of intensely personal reporting, qualities that made him an urban legend during his coverage of the Nixon White House.
Rating:
Summary: Freedom of the press belongs to he that owns one...
Review: Goldberg's entire premise makes no logical sense. Consider this: Its known that the ownership of all of this country's media (Newspapers, Television, Movie Producers, Magazines, Publishing Houses, Radio Stations etc.) can be linked to only a handfull of big business powerhouses; perhaps ten or less. Does it make any logical sense for "Big Business" to be actively, deliberately promoting a so called "Liberal" agenda? No! Its absurd. In fact it makes much more logical sense to assume that "Big Business" would attempt to promote quite the opposite. As a matter of fact, just look at Fox News on TV as just one example; they don't even try to hide the fact that they're onservative. What about Radio! Rush Limbaugh, Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingrahm, Oliver North, "Dr" Laura, on and on. American talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by the conservative view. I would be hard pressed to deliver to you a single example of a "Liberal" talk show host. If you can.. let me know because frankly it would be a welcome relief. Goldberg's book is not only sloppily written (typo's etc.), it lacks any serious academic support for his position. A better recommendation would be Michael Perenti's "Inventing Reality" if the reader cares to consider the issue with any serious intellectual effort. Mr. Goldberg would be considered much more seriously if he narrowed his argument to perhaps individual examples of Liberal "bias" than attempting to hint at the highly unlikely propositon of some sort of "Liberal" conspiracy. It just doesn't make sense. Anyone with any sense should see that. I highly recommend NOT buying this very poorly written book.
| 
