Rating: 
Summary: Well-Written Expose of Media's Left Wing Bias
Review: Great editing and an obviously talented author who clearly states his points relatively succintly, this book is a surprisingly quick read. CBS's leftward tilt was exposed back in '68 when Walter Cronkite would deliver his opinion of the Vietnam war as fact, not as a clearly labeled editorial. The seething hatred Dan Rather showed at President Nixon at press conferences, where he would at times openly mock him, was unforgettable. In the late 80s a popular bumper sticker had the CBS eye logo and said "Rather Biased."
Still remember Rather going to my high school when race riots broke out because of forced school busing and his report basically said "too bad, get used to each other." TV news organizations swore up and down that the Reagan vs. Carter 1980 election was too close to call, it was a Reagan landslide. In '96 they constantly reported how Clinton was 16 points ahead of Dole, he won by 7 (the amount Perot garnered). Rather was openly confrontational with the elder Bush in a early 88 interview, Bush's assertive handling of the CBS hothead catapulted him to a big New Hampshire win.
If the author really wanted to bash Rather, he would have mentioned the CBS hothead's supposed mugging where his assailant supposedly repeatedly asked "What's the frequency, Kenneth."
CNN quit referring to the Sept. 11 perpetrators as "terrorists" less than a month after the horrfic attacks.
Good enough for the occasional re-reading. Buy it!
Rating: 
Summary: A maddening confirmation of what many of us suspected
Review: After reading this book, I bought 4 more and gave them to friends. All had the same response, fascination with this insider's look at the news business, coupled with anger at the institutional, liberal bias that permeates the national news media.Mr. Goldberg describes himself as a liberal, New York Jew, now being portrayed as a right wing fanatic. This book was the result of his being ostracized by the media elite following an op-ed piece he did for the Wall Street Journal criticizing liberal bias in the media. The most startling statement in this book, is when Mr. Goldberg alleges that Dan Rather, Tom Brockaw, Peter Jennings, and others would pass a lie detector test while saying that did not report the news from a liberal worldview! He makes a great case that this is because the circles in which these folks operate are so small, and so out of touch with most Americans, that they can't see their own bias. He offers concrete examples, such as the practice of always identifying conservative sources as such, but never identifying liberal sources as liberals. The reason, they view conservatives as oddballs, and liberals as normal people. Again, due to the small circles in which they live and operate. I also found interesting Mr. Goldberg's take on the "business" of the news. Network News organizations are losing viewers rapidly, and a case can be made that it's due to their liberal bias. They steadfastly refuse however, to accept this as even a possibility, and so they stand around and watch their business deteriorate. Conservatives will love this book, liberals won't, but both will find it interesting and a great topic for discussion.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but too much personal over the objective
Review: For the most part, I enjoyed this book. The citation of studies which suggest (strongly) that the media is far more liberal than the general public were strong points, as were the anecdotal stories. However, the author continually comes across as being disgruntled. Yes, he was treated badly. Yes, he was attacked rather than having his claims refuted (or even acknowledged). But the snide remarks about Dan Rather (which may be justified) really do detract from the book. There is good stuff here, but the book could have been much better without the venom.
Rating:
Summary: Eye opening to say the least!
Review: Never watch ABC, CBS or NBC the same again! You would never notice how sly the above three networks can be. Goldberg, with his eye-opening examples, teaches the reader indirectly how to watch for bias. You would think since this is America and we have freedom of speech, that we are presented with both sides, but we are really being presented with the networks' views instead. Simply incredible... Thanks Goldberg and I will definitely pass this one along.
Rating: 
Summary: Bias, You Bet
Review: The two biggest biases in the network news business are 1. No story that takes more than 22 seconds to explain will see the light of day and 2. any story that has no dramatic film footage will not be covered either. Mr. Goldberg doesn't even mention these two glaring examples of bias in his book. But then being an insider I guess that he has become accustomed to covering fires, floods, and tornadoes to the exclusion of stem cell research, death with dignity, and campaign finance reform, none of which can be adequately discussed in even an hour. He does say that the network news is biased in favor of big business and cites several anecdotal instances to back up his claim. The funny thing is I had always associated big business with the conservatives rather than the liberals. As an insider though, if he says General Electric, Disney, and General Motors are pinko liberal institutions then who am I to disagree? Most of the book is anecdotal "heard at the water cooler" type stories that are a great source of gossip but are poorly backed up with documentation or statistics. The statistics quoted by Mr. Goldberg make, for the most part, the opposite case. For example, after Mr. Goldberg wrote an op-ed article for the Wall Street Journal claiming the network news media was left leaning, Dan Rather was asked about the article on another news program. Mr. Rather said that there was no left wing bias and as a matter of fact most news people didn't even know if they were Republican or Democrat. Mr. Goldberg berated Mr. Rather for making such a statement but he went on to cite statistics from an unnamed source which reported on a survey taken of network reporters and editors. Democrat 50%, Republican 4%. That leaves 46% that don't know whether they are Democrat or Republican, pretty much as Rather had suggested. I can't imagine why Goldberg would include statistics in his book that contradicted his case unless they were the only statistics available. If I called my boss a biased liar, I am sure that he would fire me and I think that is true for most folks and that is just as it should be. Did Mr. Goldberg's boss fire him when he publicly called the boss a biased liar, not once but twice? No, he didn't according to the book. The Boss asked Mr. Goldberg to stop because such claims were disloyal and untrue, but he didn't fire him. I guess that proves that the bosses Goldberg worked for are Liberal because a good Conservative boss would not only fire such a disloyal employee but have him drawn and quartered and fed to the ravens to boot. Political bias is an interesting thing. There is no hard and fast dividing line between left and right. The network news is what it is. If you have at least one eye and a TV set you can make up your own mind. If you (as Mr. Goldberg seems to) think that the media leans to the left then it might be true or may be you are just a little right of center your self. In any case, I am sure that any Kansas High School senior could make a better case for Liberal bias in the news media than Mr. Goldberg.
Rating:
Summary: I saw it, but I thought my eyes and ears were lying
Review: And my title is the truth. I saw and heard the media distortions described by Mr. Goldberg, but the level of distortions increased gradually and I just tried to convince myself that these incidents were not deliberate. I could not believe that highly educated journalists could so misconstrue their purpose from reporting the news to interpreting it. I saw the Eric Engberg piece and, although I am not a Steve Forbes fan, I was extremely disturbed by such a disrespectful report. And there was a significant percentage of that night's CBS evening news expended on that report! Over the last several - maybe 15 - years, I kept noticing a change in adjectives used in the news. More and more perjorative adjectives have found their way into reports regarding more conservative issues. Even choices like "right-wing" over "conservative" can distort a person or policy's perceptions. Please notice that you rarely hear the term "left-wing" on the news at all. The greatest disdain is saved for a Christian worldview. Trust me, Jerry Falwell's verbal gaffs do not represent the vast majority of Christians. Since reading Mr. Goldberg's book, I have become more acutely aware of the slanted reporting. One expert on a story does not a complete story make - there is always another side. My understanding of jounalism is the "who/what/when/where" and sometimes "why" of a story are presented and the viewer/ listener/reader is left to determine his or her own opinion about these facts. Obviously, it was easy for me to delve into this book since I already leaned in the direction of Mr. Goldberg's observations and opinions. Even if you do not believe that there is a bias in the media, I recommend that you read this book just to challenge your belief. As for the reviewer who said that Edward R. Murrow's report would not air today because of a "liberal" viewpoint - that is a misrepresentation of what Mr. Goldberg said. What Mr. Goldberg said is that the story would not air today because it does not fit in with the underlying attitudes and belief system of the media. That is the interesting part of the book - Mr. Goldberg has drawn a picture of media elitists who really do believe they actually know all the answers and that their job is to try to point out the danger and stupidity of those of us who have been somehow "misled" into drawing different conclusions. I recommend this book as a challenge to what you think you know.
Rating:
Summary: Bias? you said bias?.... me ?!
Review: Thank God the TV networks are not as bias as Mr. Goldberg's book !
Like a crescendo, slowly the book reveals Goldberg's own bias and conservative views....(e.g. he condemns calling Bauer "the little nut of the Christian group" but a few pages later he'll call somebody an "acid popping weirdo"!). Goldberg missed the opportunity of showing us what "fair and balanced" reporting should be by stepping instead through the fine line of being bias himself. Many times he gets sidetracked into problems that are more relevant of our society's state of affairs than of the TV network itself ; it could be acceptable if condensed into a few lines instead of several pages. Another point Goldberg missed is that bias is not the appanage of the liberals ; just an hour listening to the Rush Limbaugh or other conservative radio talkshows will dismiss any of this illusion: there is more hate and bias there than in all the TV networks combined !.....so, shall we say it is fair game or shall we call off the game altogether.....Or shall we remind ourselves that everytime Truth is manipulated (on either side) it creates a ripple effect that in the long run will slap us in the face as a society. The TV networks are more a reflection of what our society is and want than its modeler . Abortion is the Law, so is Affirmative Action and so on...so, Yes, we can assume they are reasonable views being adopted by the vast majority (it is what democracy is about). The conservatives are not barred from working or being heard on the networks : the vast majority just have no much interest in their opinion. Liberals leap into the future (not without "faux pas" along the way), conservatives "build bridges to the 19th century" and we are a progressive society. Like in sports air time is seldom given to the losers' team . In our money oriented culture TV is Business not a charitable organization.....blame the culture not the means.....
There is a dichotomy between Goldberg acting as a maverick denouncing CBS and still not having the guts to leave a company practicing such horrid acts ! Not only he bites the hand that feeds him but he also accept to be muzzled (p. 129). Another flaw in his reasoning : He points out that "the most important story you'll never see in the news" is how working mothers are destroying their children well-being and thus our society.As an unbiased reader I would tell him that there is another untold story : how irresponsible men ruin their families and society through their destructive behavior (adultery, pornography, violence, abuse,.....) thus forcing women to be working women .....this is fair and balanced ! Though starting the book with an eager mind, I ended up agreeing with Rather when he pretends that Goldberg has a political agenda ; it is definitively a conservative one and by a twist of Irony he is obviously unaware of it ....just what he is reproaching his antagonists!!
Rating: 
Summary: I hate fat stupid liberals
Review: Oh, wait. I thought this was the Michael Moore review section. What I meant was, I love bitter, balding "journalists" who use anecdotes rather than facts to make their points. Go, go, Goldberg!!
Rating:
Summary: How refreshing! finally, someone speaks the TRUTH!
Review: Bernard Goldberg has the intelligence to speak the truth in his great book - I have been a liberal almost my entire life and didn't see the TRUTH until about 3 years ago. you must read it...
Rating:
Summary: This man HATES Dan Rather (but it's still a good book)
Review: I can't get over how many times in this book Bernard Goldberg has to tell us that he isn't doing this because he hates Dan Rather. I find it interesting because it is so obvious that he does. Way too much of this short book is filled with personal shots at Rather. When he does get down to business for the most part he makes good points. His chapter on feminism is far and away the best because he makes good clear points. The rest of the book seems shaky. Sure it's ridiculous that a journalist can say that she doesn't know one person who voted for Nixon when he won 49 states. . .but all one has to do is look at Fox News if you want to see a severe right tilt. Maybe I'm just bitter because I have a left tilt.
| 
