Rating: 
Summary: Goldberg clearly explains the media's slide
Review: Bernard Goldberg has written a book that explains exactly why (and how) the major networks have lost viewership. The big three (Brokaw, Jennings, and Rather) are so openly blatant in their liberal bias and probably do not even understand their failings. Viewers have switched to alternate sources, such as Fox News Network, for their news and eventually it will send a wake-up call to the major network bosses. The real question is why is it taking so long? Goldberg's book is a thoughtful, not a spiteful, story of the dying of network news.
Rating: 
Summary: A compelling premise, but...
Review: Where was the editor when this book was being prepared? Don't publishing houses have professionals around to read these things and make sure that authors don't embarrass themselves by having things like this go into print "as is"? While I found the author's concept and anecdotal support fairly compelling, I was appalled that someone billed as am Emmy-award winning journalist would have written so sloppy a book. Endless redundancies, "what-if" comparisons meant to be cuttingly funny and coming across as low-grade adolescent. I am finishing the book because I do believe it has something important to say, but my advice to the author would be to hire a good editor next time to clean up his prose.
Rating:
Summary: Strident but right on the money
Review: If you want to have proof that a liberal bias exists in the media, especially in The New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN, look no further than the first few dozen pages of this short book. Bernie Goldberg recounts a "news report" on The CBS Evening News during the 1996 Republican primaries where a correspondent does a Letterman-style "Top Ten Reasons" why Steve Forbes' flat tax is a "wacky idea." This was not a commentary, mind you, but a news story. And then Rather has the chutzpah to chuckle in amused disbelief about allegations that there is a liberal bias in the media.That a liberal bias exists is not surprising, given that in poll after poll, journalists favor Democratic candidates such as Walter Mondale in landslide numbers over Republican candidates. Yet although it is impossible for anyone to completely transcend their bias, Goldberg is right when he states that more effort is needed. However, this book suffers most from its strident and angry tone. Goldberg's assertions that he was treated like a mob informer by the "media mafia" are overblown. Goldberg's consistently angry rhetoric makes it hard to believe that he did not approach this project with a very large ax to grind himself. Nonetheless, this book is chock full of humorous anecdotes of the Orwellian liberal-P.C. atmosphere in news bureaus, where the primary goal is not to report the truth, but to avoid offending liberal advocacy groups. Worth the read.
Rating: 
Summary: The "Liberal Media" Myth Lives!
Review: "Bias" isn't supported-- because it's not true"
(by Steve Rendall and Peter Hart)
Proving that irony is alive and well post-Sept. 11, a book deriding the national press corps for its flagrant liberal bias has been the subject of enormous attention in the same mainstream media that, the book argues, suppress conservative views. Bias, by former CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg, is long on name-calling and vitriol, but short on substance. "Delusional," "hypocrites," "Lilliputians"-- these are just a few of the words Goldberg uses to describe journalists in general, and his old CBS colleagues in particular. It's ironic that Goldberg's book has come out during a time when right-wing media watchdogs-- who can find a socialist tilt in the weather report-- are offering virtually nothing but praise for mainstream journalists' coverage since Sept. 11. Goldberg marshals little documentation for his claim that the news is packed with the views of liberal advocacy groups and rarely includes conservative opinions. In reality, year after year, right-leaning think tanks are cited in far more broadcast and print reports than either centrist or left-leaning think tanks. A survey by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting of Nightline's guest list found that for every representative of a labor union invited to debate economic issues, there were seven representatives of corporations. If, as Goldberg argues, there's a media tilt toward Democrats, then why have Republicans received a majority of newspaper endorsements in all but two presidential elections since 1932? Goldberg left CBS four years ago after accusing his colleagues of bias in a 1996 Wall Street Journal column. The piece focused on a CBS Evening News segment scrutinizing a flat-tax proposal made by Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes. The story was one-sided, giving no time to flat-tax supporters, but was it really proof of liberal bias? Consider the four flat-tax critics featured in the segment: House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an adviser to the senior President Bush, a former Nixon era IRS commissioner, and a tax expert. A single segment featuring mostly right-of-center sources criticizing one Republican's tax proposal is hardly smoking-gun evidence of a left-wing media tilt. Yet five years later the CBS flat-tax report is still Goldberg's "Exhibit A," the main evidence of liberal bias in his skimpy book. Large chunks of the book aren't about liberal bias at all. For example, Goldberg chides NBC anchor Tom Brokaw for failing to do a story about a defective airplane engine made by NBC parent General Electric. This kind of pro-corporate bias is a standard complaint of left-leaning media critics. Later, Goldberg delivers a lengthy and stinging indictment of the networks for making profit-based decisions valuing White and middle-class demographics above all else, and skewing news and entertainment accordingly. He concludes, "Advertisers like White audiences, they have more money to spend"-- again sounding more like a progressive media critic. But don't mistake Goldberg's seeming sensitivity for compassion. For years he has accused the media of expressing too much sympathy for the homeless and other underdogs. "So what if many of the homeless are truly drug addicts or alcoholics or simply lazy?" he asked in a 1990 New York Times Op-Ed, which also chided the media for excessive compassion toward AIDS patients. Goldberg couldn't muster much sympathy for laid-off workers either: "How many stories have you seen on TV or read in the newspaper-- in your entire life-- that attempt to find out how many of these laid-off workers took school seriously? How many thought kids who studied were wimps, and worse?" The only claim Goldberg makes that has real documentation behind it is about the elite mentality of big-time journalists, but it's a charge that undermines the case for liberal bias. A 1998 FAIR survey of the opinions of the Washington press corps found that journalists were more conservative-- not more liberal-- than the general public on major economic issues such as trade, taxes, Social Security, health care and corporate power. Here's a reality check for Bernard Goldberg: The mainstream media are no more liberal than the conglomerates that own them or the advertisers that pay their bills.
Rating:
Summary: Goldberg caters to prejudices without proof
Review: Goldberg offers opinions and anecdotes but no serious studies to support his thesis. Anybody can write a book that caters to people's prejudices, chock full of tales and stories but short on facts, and sell thousands of copies. Has Mr. Goldberg never heard of Rush Limbaugh? Fox News? Talk Radio? Is Mr. Goldberg not aware that the NY Times and Washington Post hounded Pres. Clinton throughout his presidency? They hardly covered up for him, quite the opposite. If you want to know how the conservative Ministry of Truth operates, try "Blinded By The Right" by David Brock, the guy who made up the "Troopergate" story.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting look at the news industry
Review: Goldberg's premise is simple: The media has a liberal bias. With many years in the industry, his thoughts are worth consideration. The book starts off with a rather harsh critique of Dan Rather, or "The Dan" as Goldberg calls him. At first it almost seems like a personal attack on Dan Rather (which is quite funny), but he eventually lets up and gets on with the book. He touches on how the media portrays homelessness, AIDS and even September 11th. The information presented seems somewhat well balanced, but his strong opinions hang over any balance that is presented. Without question, Goldberg is strongly opinionated and writes with his own biases, but the book is still worth reading. Even if some of his views are on the extreme side, he brings up many good points of discussion and will certainly get you thinking about the news industry.
Rating:
Summary: Editorial Opinion or News
Review: This is a decent short course for anyone who is interested in learning how the "news business" operates these days. This book has taken a slam for its "conservative bias", so if you are still in doubt about the author's objectivity, I would highly recommend David Halberstam's The Powers That Be. David Halberstam could never be accused of having a politically conservative viewpoint, but he certainly echoes some of the same concerns about "media slant" of the news. They agree on one vital fact, there should be a clear cut delineation between news and editorial opinion that business mangement and advertising revenues shouldn't cross. Here's my editorial opinion - it's become increasingly difficult to separate fact from opinion in the so called "main stream" media. Goldberg and Halberstam give anyone who isn't interested in being spoon fed a reasonable standard to question what's being presented as news.
Rating:
Summary: Blowing the Whistle
Review: _Bias_ is a delightful foray into the sordid details of the liberal bias in the news media. Goldberg argues his case well, both from the totally out-of-proportion response to his own 1996 WSJ op-ed on the subject and general areas of liberal bias, such as homelessness, abortion, feminism, and so on. Perhaps the most interesting observation in the book was how much the media adores whistle blowers (particularly his former employer CBS), until the dirty laundry being aired is their own. Ah, the hypocrisy! Goldberg's style of writing was entertaining, smooth, and funny, with some comments sure to rankle any biased liberal. _Bias_ is worth reading, if only for the inside look into the crazy world of the news industry.
Rating: 
Summary: Yes there's bias- but it isn't liberal
Review: If you watch the major news channels: Fox News or the newly revamped CNN (revamped to attract more right-wing extremist viewers) you must ask yourself...is what I am viewing and hearing a "Liberal view-point?"
There is certainly no liberal viewpoint on Fox News. There may be some so-called, "liberal views" on CNN but then, isnt a mix of views what we used to call- "unbiased and fair reporting?"
The founders of this nation guaranteed us a FREE PRESS. What right-wingers like Goldberg are doing is attempting to control the media according to THEIR bias and whining about it when "the news" does not fit their own narrow opinion. They wish to put an END to our free press and from what I see and read, they are succeeding quite well.
The dictionary definition of- Conservative is "Resistant to change." Goldberg was born in the wrong century. Or possibly the wrong nation? China may be more to his liking where the government controls the media.
This book is a waste of money. If I want to hear right-wing whining, I can always turn on Fox News.
Rating:
Summary: Only one observation missing:
Review: In the chapter entitled "The Most Important Story You Never Saw on TV" concerning mothers who stay at home and raise their children, the only thing Mr. Goldberg missed is the fact that conservatives believe this is a job to be praised. Should the liberal media take that same stand, they would be for family values and that has become a "right-wing" cause.
| 
