Rating: 
Summary: Too shallow
Review: Mr. Goldberg presents potential thought provoking material but stops short of accomplishing his goal. His analysis is too shallow for what could have been a profound look at a dichotomy of political thought.
Rating: 
Summary: The scary truth about TV News
Review: "BIAS" should be a required read before anyone is allowed to watch TV.
Rating:
Summary: Want more evidence? Look at this week's NYT Book Review!
Review: To a certain extent, the charge of liberal bias can be hard to prove. Not only may it require delving into the mind of the news writer to ascertain intent and motive, but also because much of the evidence is anecdotal in nature. For example, the very subject that led to Mr. Goldberg's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal--Eric Engnerg's use words such as "elixir", "scheme" and "wacky" to describe Steve Forbes' flat tax plan--was anecdotal. Nevertheless, the anecdotal evidence, when piled one on top of another, can certainly be persuasive, and Goldberg himself is devastaingly effective every time he gives us an example of a comment (read: criticism, accusation, insult, etc.) by a liberal against a conservative which drew no reaction at all from the media, followed by his rhetorical question: Do you think the (non-)reaction would be the same if a similar comment was directed against someone from the left? The answer, inevitably, is no. A good example of this technique is when Goldberg mused what would happen if Robert Novak had said: "I hope Jesse Jackson's wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease." These were the exact words directed by a USA Today columnist towards Clarence Thomas, which caused nary a stir. Having just finished Goldberg's book, I was stunned (well, maybe I shouldn't have been), by several items I noticed in this week's New York Times Book Review, which demonstrate Goldberg's point in a way which Goldberg could not himself have improved upon. The bestseller list each week conists of the title, author and publisher of each book followed by a brief thumbnail summary of what the book is about. In this week's edition, of the 15 nonfiction bestsellers, there are three books in which the NYT writer uses quotation marks as part of the summary. The purpose of those quotation marks is clear: to make sure the reader understands (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that the writer of the summary (and by extension the Times itself) does NOT share the views of the author. Moreover, one of these three authors is specifically described as "right-wing" and another is specifically described as "conservative". The first of these three books and the No. 1 bestseller is (surprise, surprise), this book. The NYT writer advises us that it is about "how the media distorts the news". The quotes are not mine; they are those of the writer so that he can subtly get his message across that Goldberg's views are NOT his (or her) views. The second book, at No. 7, is by Patrick Buchanan. (You can guess what's coming.) Here the Times advises us that this book is by a "right-wing pundit" (given the somewhat perjorative connotation of "pundit", the Times is here stringing two insults together) about the "immigrant invasions" that threaten Western culture. Again, the quotes here are not mine but from the Times writer--to remind us once again: "Hey my fellow erudite NYT East and West coast readers--those are PAT'S words, not ours!" The third book, coming in at No. 8, is from another darling of the left wing, Barbara Olson. Like Pat, she too gets the double whammy--the gratuitous identification of her political perspective, followed by the ever-present quotes. She is a "conservative commentator" (quotes mine, but words from the Times) who discusses "the last desperate abuses of power" (quotes from the NYT writer) in the Clinton White House. The quotes once again serve to remind us those those are BARBARA'S views, not ours! It is worth noting that none of the other blurbs contain any identification of the political leanings of the authors nor any gratuitous quotation marks to distinguish the authors' views from those of the Times. As Goldberg himself might say, it is hard to imagine the the Times describing any book by Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy as being written by a "left-winger" or a "liberal".
Finally, and as a segue from the issue of identification of one's philosophy, I mentioned earlier that liberal bias can be hard to prove because of its frequent reliance on the anecdotal story. However there is at least one way in which the bias can be demonstrated somewhat more empirically and that regards the use of the words "conservative", "right-wing", "liberal" and left-wing". The magazine Brill's Content actually did a study on this very issue by actually counting the number of times these terms appeared in the major print and television outlets over a several month period. It should come as no great shock to anyone that the terms "conservative" and "right wing" were used about 12 times more frequently than the terms "liberal" and "left wing". (We have already seen from this week's NYT Book Review that the score is 3-0.) How can one explain this, if not as evidence of bias? It would seem that Roger Ailes of Fox News had it right on target when he stated that, to the media, Americans fall into one of two categories--they are either moderates or right-wingers or right-wing nuts. With a mindset like this, it's no surprise that the words "left-wing" and "liberal" are heard so rarely from the major media outlets-if the world consists of moderates and right-wingers, those creatures, like dinosaurs, no longer exist.
Rating: 
Summary: Bernie... Bernie... Bernie
Review: If Bernard Goldberg was half the book writer that he was a reporter at CBS News, this book would be a 5 star special by everyone. But Author Goldberg gets so caught up in CBS situationalism that he fails to either see the broader picture of the Media or provide concrete advice for media consumers. The essence of Goldberg's book is that the media is biased in the way it covers certain subjects and political perspectives. Uh, Bernie, ever heard of Billy Hearst, Bobby McCormick or Hank Luce? Biased and even yellow journalism has been a trademark of American journalism since the days when Ben Franklin was still blowing air on the ink of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, some of America's most interesting reporting has come from "biased" reporters. One can only imagine what Joe McCarthy thought about Ed Murrow's "bias" when Murrow told the truth about "the junior Senator from Wisconsin." The McCarthy reporting came from a man who went on to be USIA Director in the Kennedy Administration. So, of course the media is biased! All it means is that one must be well-read (and well-watched if that's your medium) to understand contemporary reportage. Such a reality does not absolve the media of being responsible, but Goldberg's book offered little in the way of guidance for editors and news directors on balance and responsibility. Reduced to its essence, this book did two things. One was tell the obvious and the second was to tell us more than what we wanted or needed to know about Bernie's battle with CBS News. And geez, CBS' weaknesses in the past 25 years haven't been covered in the media, have they?
Rating:
Summary: The King is naked!
Review: Straight from a media insider we discover what we knew all along. Rather and his boys have been trying to dupe us into believing they have the cat by the tail. Come to find out they are all running scared and Mr. Goldberrg exposes them. The network anchors would rather tell you how you should think and feel instead of giving you the opportunity to make your own conclusions. I'll read this book again!
Rating: 
Summary: The end of the vast left wing conspiracy.
Review: 1996 Bernard Goldberg wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal that said there was an obvious bias on the part of network new shows for the liberal point of view. he then illustrated this with an example that he dissected in-depth. The reaction to this observation was the ruination of her career, and the beginning of his status as a pariah among most newsmen. This book is used to add more ammo to the controversy. That the journalists who so eagerly pry into other peoples lives and business should be reluctant to be examined is hardly surprising. Almost no one really wants to have his life or business dissected by Mike Wallace not even Dan Rather. Some facts in this book are really potent such as the survey results which show how the average journalist and the average American are often vastly at odds. Other chapters highlight different stories that TV news has covered and the analysis that Goldberg has made to point out the liberal bias. His main theme is that while there is no conspiracy of the left, the fact is that most reporters are liberal but fewer still will admit it. There is some sound reasoning behind this book. Sadly in execution, it doesn't come off as well as it could. Goldberg has one argument in all the years he worked closely with Dan Rather (according to him) and yet it seems like all they did was fight. Why ? because Goldberg replays that one argument about 5 or 6 times in the book. Much of the material that is thought provoking the first time around is pretty stale after the third or fourth reading. He kindly reprints the editorial that started the whole furor, too bad this was at the end of the book because the entire first chapter is just a rehash of that argument. Too often Goldberg is reduced sounding like the bitter vindictive person he claims not to be. Sarcasm and snide remarks permeate the book often serving to distract from the valid points it has to offer. Bernard Goldberg's years as an insider give him a valuable perspective about the current media climate, however this book is more of a dull whine than a clarion call. I look forward to seeing more on this subject from such a well informed insider as Mr. Goldberg after he has finished venting his anger.
Rating:
Summary: For a true conservative this is and excellent read...
Review: We have all known for sometime that the media was extremely bias on their reporting. But to hear it from a former insider is absolutely compelling. To see, first hand, how evil people like Dan "Blather" Rather, is a must. The book is well written and grasp your undivided attention. You want, want to put the book down since it is such a simple and to-the-point read... Try it... it is well worth it...
Rating:
Summary: News Execs are not in touch with mainstream America
Review: This is an eye-opening book that discusses how the national
news media slants the current events way to the left and actually believes that it is within popular thought with the general public. When in fact, when polled, the Washington and NY press corps is overwhelmingly liberal (90 %) plus as compared to 55 % of the viewers.
Rating:
Summary: Goldberg's gotten under their skin, but it's very thin skin
Review: I wasn't going to bother reading "Bias" because I didn't see the point. It didn't seem like a big shock or a big deal to me that someone would admit the obvious: network news tilts idealogically leftward. But, when I saw Mr. Goldberg interviewed on "Greenfield at Large" (CNN) and "The News Hour" (PBS), I changed my mind and got the book. It wasn't anything Mr. Goldberg said, it was the way his interviewers were treating him. On PBS, he was double-teamed and they would interrupt him so that at times he would be unable to complete his answers effectively. On CNN, the credibility of Goldberg's entire thesis was challeged merely because he didn't trash Bryant Gumbel (with whom he currently works on an HBO sports show), who is often criticized by conservatives for his anti-conservative bias. I figured, if this book has gotten under their skin this much, maybe there's something really shocking in "Bias", maybe I should read it after all. Most of "Bias" confirmed what I already knew. There were a few examples where Mr. Goldberg exposes an idealogical spin in areas I hadn't thought of in terms of spin (day care, for example) and after reading the book I think I'm way more sensitive to the way the news is reported and how certain buzzwords can be used in a way that signals a reporter's idealogical point of view on a particular story. It made me think more about the subtle examples of bias as opposed to the more blatant and obvious examples. And Mr. Goldberg's transformation from journalist to pariah was interesting. But I still don't understand what it is about this book that makes Mr. Goldberg's colleagues so itchy. Is their skin that thin? Are they really as ignorant of their innate spin as they'd have you believe? It is true that, as Jeff Greenfield observed, Goldberg steers clear of mentioning Bryant Gumbel - although he did quote another morning show denizen, Katie Couric. While this may indicate that he was willing to burn some bridges more than others, it doesn't weaken his thesis. It's just changing the subject to make it about the author (and his motivation, be it bitterness toward CBS or gratefulness for employment from HBO & Gumbel), rather than the author's ideas. If you already believe or know that the media is biased, you're not going to learn that much from "Bias", you'll just confirm your beliefs. I really think that the lefties in the media are over-reacting. If their intent is to help Bernard Goldberg sell a ton of books, they're doing a great job, because their reaction is so over-the-top, it makes you think there's got to be much more in "Bias" than there is. All things considered, "Bias" is a useful book, but not essential.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read for all
Review: I just finished reading BIAS and I HIGHLY recommend it for people of all political persuasions. A couple things to note: 1. It's a very engaging read -- well written and entertaining on top of infomative. 2. It's much more SUBSTANTIAL than I expected. I thought it would just be an anti-liberal gossip session but it had a LOT of MEAT in it that I think would be interesting to any AMERICAN, not just a conservative one. 3. I've always sensed a liberal bias in the media, but thought that was just "spin" ...reporting the PART of the news that fit their agenda. I was sincerely shocked to learn of instances where they have FLAT OUT LIED to us. Great Book!
| 
