Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing Insights of an Insider
Review: Sure, we all know what he is writing is true. But, to quote the book, "Maybe, Wayne, but there's a big difference between when Rush Limbaugh or Bill Buckley says it and when a CBS News correspondent says it." The insider perspective is what makes this book so valuable. The parallels Goldberg draws between the TV networks and the Mafia families are particularly intriguing.Dittos to the many previous reviewers as well.
Rating: 
Summary: This book should be classified as fiction
Review: This is obviously the tale of a disgruntled employee who claims there is some type of media bias in the news, but anyone who is channel surfing these days can clearly observe the case is quite the opposite. The media is owned by right-wing corporations who gain profits from the Republican policies. NBC, for one is owned by GE who is a defense contractor. ABC is owned by Disney and, we all know about the FAUX Nuisand Channel. Just turn on your radio or tune into any politcal discussion show and it is clear that conservatives get TWICE the air time as liberals, if not more. I'm not sure what this man's purpose for writing this tale for except for revenge. Don't bother with it.
Rating:
Summary: Bias and accurate title
Review: Poorly written and barely researched, this book is designed to reinforce the conventional wisdom of the right wing. The examples are mostly anecdotal and subjective, and often disprove the very argument the author is trying to make. You can find much more evidence that the opposite is, in fact, true. The media is controlled by the right! Look to ... for a broad overview of the theory of right-wing bias or to ... for daily examples of right-wing Bias and decide for yourself. Either of these websites has more hard data than Goldberg's book. As to the spin of this book, It was written to appeal to a right-wing audience. Just look at Amazon's own list of "Customers who bought titles by Bernard Goldberg also bought titles by these authors" below. The "BIAS" in this case is obvious. If you are one of the sheep Goldberg aims to shear, then by all means buy, Buy, BUY! If you are serious about this topic, look elsewhere.
Rating: 
Summary: A Hit Piece on Dan Rather
Review: I just finished this book. Goldberg's indictment of the network news starts out great, with a hard hitting indictment of the network news, and Goldberg's op-ed piece about the bias of a CBS news report. After that it breaks down into generic attacks on the media coverage of issues such as AIDS and homelessness, in which Goldberg makes his point of media bias. The rest is what I consider just filler or hit pieces of Dan Rather. The guy has an obvious axe to grind with Dan, maybe deserved, maybe not, but it's riddled throughout the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Conservatives Have Been "Right" All Along
Review: Conservatives have been right all along. For decades, conservatives have been charging that the media were a closed society that deliberately distorted and biased their coverage of events, and that the media deliberately slanted stories to favor narrow leftist political agendas. Bernard Goldberg, after nearly three decades as an insider at CBS now says in his recently published book that the media are not only guilty as charged, they are actually much worse. Media coverage of everything from AIDS to Zimbabwe follwed a few simple formulae and filtering rules. Most reports are run by advocacy groups to see if they advance the agendas of left wing ideology. Most stories are edited to please strident but powerful constituencies on the political left. The media loudly proclaim their fairness while deliberately biasing stories. Many news reports are not really news at all, they are sob stories designed to create emotional responses -- usually support for (or opposition to) some bill, some business, or some program. In the major media, facts are often ignored or left out of reports if they do not support the media points of view. COnservatives are always described in negative terms (opposing things, killing some program, attacking or undermining something, seizing control of Congress, etc.). Liberals are always described in positive terms (championing a cause, rooting out evil, standing up to evil opponents, struggling in a just cause, winning hearts and minds, etc.). Bernard Goldberg states that advancing political correctness, not truth, is the real objective in most media reporting. Hence, people with AIDS are all victims--of conservative budget cuts, not their own sexual irresponsibility; homeless people are all victims of government program cuts--not of their wanton drinking and drug abuse; anti-American terrorists are freedom fighters struggling against the "evil" of the USA or Israel, not vile or evil people who plot to kill and maim others. Mr. Goldberg raises some disturbing possibilities in BIAS. AMong these: * Are western nations less secure because media disotortions have blamed America and Isreal for the actions of terrorists and criminals?
* Are race relations much worse than necessary because the media like whipping up racial tensions (a charge also made by David Horowitz, Ward Connerly, and others)?
*Is American education failing because media coverage has only reported the teacher's union's views (more money for less work, and more power with less accountability)? If there is an object lesson in this book it is that the media are guided more by the principals of Vladimir Lenin and Josef Goebbels. Lenin urged the fomentation of class warfare by distorting perceptions through tendentious reporting and misrepresentations that advanced partisan objectives. Goebbels urged the telling of big lies over and over, since they come to be believed as people attempt to resolve cognitive disonance.
Lenin was a global socialist revolutionary, and Goebbels was a National Socialist propagandist. The media, according to Bernard Goldberg, have adopted the methods of both, and seem to also be advancing socialist thinking.
Rating:
Summary: the main point
Review: Many seem to be missing the author's main point. Whether you agree with his premise or not,his main point seems to be that in contemporary american society, most people are passive listeners, naively accepting everything they hear as "truth" without critical analysis. Freedom includes (some would say requires)a willingness to question, as a means of seeking out (and preserving)the truth. In a more simple and innocent time, I suppose we could all just trust Walter Cronkite to tell it like it was. Well, Walter didn't have to function in the mega-multi-national trillion dollar media business of today, but then thats no excuse for the kind of blatant group-think and interest group pandering we now get from the major news networks. Dan, Peter and the others are just guilty of human nature multiplied by the sheer magnitude of the dollars involved in today's media circus. Go along, get along, get in line. Its no different in the US Congress, Enron, or the boy scouts. The author seems to be saying that it is even more critical today to look underneath our assumptions, especially when those assumptions are derived from a so-called objective media. Obviously that makes people uncomfortable and requires some work, but its not a conservative or liberal issue. I really don't mind an NPR commentator blasting off on Rush, because at least they have the courage to stand up for their convictions, but I do take offense when major network news people lean one way or the other and then try to pass it off as the objective truth because they do not have the moral character necessary to stand up for what they believe in. Don't patronize me. Buy the book. Its short and entertaining, and maybe, just maybe, it might make you think a little. Thats why the guy wrote it.
Rating:
Summary: Convincing, credible, and courageous
Review: Just finished the book and I have to say I thought it was an eye opener. I felt that what makes this book so compelling, aside from the obvious, was that it appeared to genuinely be written without any malicious intent. Goldberg makes the case very well that he isn't out to even any score, just point out what he observed over many years, and most importantly, what happened to him after he dared to write an op-ed for the WSJ raising the question of liberal bias in the news. No matter what you think of "whistle-blowers" this is a must read for anyone who gets their information from the news. (which is just about all of us).
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic
Review: Although Goldberg does not tell me anything that surprises me, getting an inside look at how the media sausage is made is still eye-opening. It is also funny to see how the media, who loves to put people under the microscope, cant handle the slightest bit of criticism. The knee jerk reaction of labeling anyone who questions their motivations as a right wing nut or some other label just goes to show how weak these people really are.
Rating:
Summary: Bias is worth reading
Review: As a former journalism student I can tell you that we are taught the bias which is described in this book. For example, a poorly written article about an individual associated with the political right will result in a better grade than a well written piece which is unfavorable to the political left. You learn this in Journalism 101. Find that hard to believe? Just pick up any campus newspaper and start reading. As you read remember that the students authoring this paper will soon be the same ones reporting the news.
Rating:
Summary: Ducks and Geese fly South for the Winter So All Birds Do
Review: Goldberg's book is based on the generalization that if he can find instances that he thinks are evidence of liberal bias; therefore, the media is liberally bias. He also sounds like a bitter old reporter that is striking back. And I am not impressed with the fact that he claims to be a liberal. How many times do the anti-civil rights politicans quote Dr. King? Here's some questions for Goldbery to answer; how many times a day do we hear about the stock market? How many shows are there called "Money..."? How many shows are there about the working conditions of persons with disabilities? How about the fact that the unemployment rate for persons with disabilities is at 69%. Airlines get socialist treatment when they have finacial troubles. The army goes to protect oil interests in the name of US economy but do the oil companies give the taxpayers (those who funded the wars) better energy rates? Cokie Roberts on ABC yelled that the unemployment rate went down in Jan 2002. Yeah but the number of jobs dropped by 97,000 and the unemployment rate went down because more people stopped/gave-up looking for jobs. Hey Goldberg how about debating me? Bob Ardinger Columbia, Md
| 
