Rating: 
Summary: Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" Is on the Level
Review: I long ago gave up on prime time network news for, in my opinion, the more substantive Jim Lehrer Report on PBS. So I was intrigued by a recent Lehrer segment on network bias featuring Bernard Goldberg and Marvin Kalb. During the segment Kalb was apoplectic, accusing Goldberg of nearly every sin known to man short of having sexual relations with "that woman." I thought, "Maybe there's something to this." I bought the book and read it (it only takes a few hours). My first conclusion was that Goldberg writes like he's on a screed, with lots of hyperbolic accusations and little research. My second conclusion was that this guy probably has an axe to grind, having been shunned by CBS as if he had awakened one morning to a New York revival of "Friendly Persuasion." I pretty much dismissed him myself. Then I happened to watch (inadvertently) the NBC Evening News last weekend. In it there was a segment on the Senate battle over Charles Pickering, a conservative, Southern, friend of Trent Lott and Bush's appointee to the Federal bench, whom Democrats accuse of being racially insensitive. (An interesting article ran recently in the New York Times, in which African Americans in Pickering's Mississippi home town attested to his good character, racial sensitivity and many pro-African American deeds.) The NBC segment had a Democrat (saying that Pickering was unqualified) and a Republican (saying that this was just a sacrificial prelude to the Supreme Court battle). Nice balance. Then they put on a sound bite from one of the home town African Americans, saying that Pickering shouldn't be held accountable for things he did 20 years ago -- neatly implying that he did something terrible 20 years ago. And the kicker was a very negative sound bite from a spokesperson for NOW. What on earth does NOW have to do with issues of racial insensitivity? The clear implication was that not only should African Americans hate Pickering, so should women. Suddenly, it became so clear. Goldberg has made a point. The networks ARE biased, and it shows. Don't shoot the messenger. Read the book.
Rating: 
Summary: What crap
Review: Two hundred and fifty-six pages of gross generalizations and WHINING, twisting facts to support a thesis based on sour grapes and bitterness. Goldberg contorts himself in ignoring all of the evidence that runs counter to his perspective--anything he disagrees with is "spin" manufactured by the Great Liberal Conspiracy, and never does he give thought to the solidly conservative corporate hegemony that owns the major media outlets. Whiny, paranoid, and, most of all, self indulgently bitter, Bias is aptly named only in that its author's bias trumps any attempts at objective, thoughtful analysis of the American media. If that's what you're looking for, you won't find it here.
Rating: 
Summary: Truth, undistorted
Review: This book should be a must read for all high school and college journalism students. We all knew these were facts, but this is most revealing. An explanation of why network news is failing.
Rating:
Summary: Insight for the open-minded
Review: This was an excellent book. It's written from the insider's point of view, but is not vindictive (like whistleblowers can be) or particularly right or left balanced. Goldberg's basic premise is that #1) there is a left leaning bias in the media elite (noted by everybody but the media elite themselves) and #2) that it develops not from smoke-filled backroom antics but by a general nature of how the media elite view the world. I found it interesting to see the subtle ways the bias represents itself, like: using terms like conservative and right-wing when the opposite terms liberal and left-wing are never mentioned, and nearly always using left-leaning individuals to provide commentary yet not providing a right-leaning counterbalance (an example here is going to NOW spokeswomen always instead of going to conservative women's groups whenver a women's issue develops). Overall a great book to broaden the mind and understanding.
Rating:
Summary: Common Sense
Review: You really don't need to a read a book to tell you that most Journalist are naturally liberal. Its part of the job's credo, to bring information to the masses. But its still an interesting and entertaining read.
Rating:
Summary: Should be required reading for all journalism students...
Review: First and foremost, how you feel about this book is going to be almost 100% based on your political persuasion. If you're a Conservative, "you knew it all a long." If you're a Liberal, "he's a former employee with an ax to grind." In fact, both statements are probably true. As I read the negative reviews posted about this book it occurs to me that not one even makes a veiled attempt to defend the examples Goldberg writes about. The reason for this is they are all undefendable and true examples of liberal bias in the media. Goldberg's trouble with the bias, and the real point of the book, is that there isn't a vast left wing conspiracy but rather that the media is blind to its biases. This is an excellent and frightening point. However, I do agree with those that point out that he is unnecessarily over the top with his venom for Dan Rather. Goldberg should have let the evidence speak for itself. Goldberg's writing style is very conversational making this a quick and good read. All that said, if you are VERY Liberal and don't believe that media bias exists save your money and buy something else.
Rating:
Summary: Will Anger You To The Core
Review: After finishing this book, its going hard to watch the news again (at least on NBC, ABC, and CBS). Everything that Goldberg mentions is dead on. For me, the two most eye-opening chapters were "Targeting Men" and "The Most Important Story You Never Saw On TV."For the sake of the sustaining of the republic itself, read this book!
Rating:
Summary: tendentious and vitriolic foolishness
Review: While Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" is an entertaining read, it ultimately fails for a couple of glaring reasons. First, the book is disjointed, and Goldberg doesn't do a particularly good job of making connections. The author trowels out instances of ambiguous events in which, if you are a tendentious author like Goldberg, you will see clear liberal bias, but doesn't do a very good job of showing how these instances illustrate an overall point of view. Underlying Goldberg's argument is the idea that the sheer number of instances of liberal bias he's witnessed -- some of which could be interpreted in various ways -- make the case that, ipso facto, the media is liberally biased. I don't think Goldberg's tack works out very well, and the author would have been better off to make more concrete connections. The second key problem with Goldberg's "Bias" is Goldberg's venom. Far too many passages in this book feel like they were intended to settle scores, particularly the crack that has been extensively covered in the media about the cost of Dan Rather's suits. I think Goldberg's vitriol seriously diminishes the content of his argument, and that he would have been better off just reporting dispassionately. Maybe this vituperative approach is just Goldberg's way, and he couldn't have helped it, but in the end, it's terribly distracting.
Rating:
Summary: Bias
Review: Goldberg, if he ever took a course in logic or evidence, certainly shows no sign of it in this drivel. He takes extremely anecdotal evidence and pretends to extrapolate grand themes from it. The author is apparently as lazy as he is illogical. In some instances, definitive information regarding his assertions is available yet he ignores it, either because of personal dishonesty or because he simply cannot be bothered to research. For example, he chose to assert that bias exists because some of the Senators in the Clinton Impeachment trial were identified as "conservatives" while ignoring the context of the identification, that being a rift between the conservative and moderate elements of the GOP in how to proceed with the trial. The book is filled with such shoddy work.
Rating:
Summary: Terrific book!
Review: Bernard Goldberg's mother and the entire country will proud of him for blowing the whistle on behind-the-scenes bias and peer pressure in the news media. Mr.Goldberg very convincingly makes the point that network PC'ness rules to a depth not known to the American public and for the most part denying the citizens of this country a fair look at the issues. This book should be required reading for anyone who watches network news and talk shows!
Nice work Bernie!
|
