Rating: 
Summary: BIAS- Runs out of STEAM
Review: I agreed with some of Goldberg's points about liberal bias
in the media. However, I think stories' content are more about reporters' laziness vs actual bias. I do think he does a lot of whining and putting down people (like Peter Jennings) without real justification. If he was truly peaved about his treatment at CBS News - he should have left sooner - not just waiting for his pension to kick in. This book was an easy read - but lacking any real substance.
Rating: 
Summary: Insight that is uncomfortable yet not surprising
Review: The key to this book is that it admits what the mainstream media does not - that there is bias in methods of communication emanating from the news media. There is bias in the book itself, but not in terms of alignment with a specific political idealogy or due to caution about being politically correct. Goldberg states up front and repeatedly what he believes needs to be changed in journalism. He is calling for balance and fairness. He is being far more honest and forthright (although not delicate) in dealing with both sides of prominent social issues than are his colleagues (former) who sit behind the news desks at ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC. Once you get by the very apparent "axe to grind" thread in the book, Goldberg's points are thought provoking. Do I agree with them all? No. But that's irrelevant. He demonstrates that there are major untold components of important news stories that are omitted because of the biases of the media. He also cites examples when stories have been intentionally doctored for fear of offending certain select segments of the society. His message is that contrary to most of what we see and read, news ought to be fair and honest. Save the editorials for the editorial columns. Goldberg conveys that the network anchors are prima donnas, but who is really surprised? Remember the US Open Tennis fiasco several years ago on CBS and Dan Rather's reaction? Ever since the Munich Olympics, Peter Jennings has elbowed others out of the way. I remember watching Aaron Brown as a very aggressive young pup on the Seattle news. But in fairness, who can really object to the ambitions of the news anchors? They are celebs, not newspeople. They are as reliant on polls and the whims of the general populace as are politicians. No one would REALLY really refer to Dan, Peter, Tom (or even Aaron) as the Most Trusted Man in America, would they? We know what their political inclinations are. Goldberg simply confirms our suspicions. Of the handfull of books I have reviewed for Amazon, I have not yet given 5 stars. This one is perhaps the closest to the mark, not only for its content but also for the ideas it generates. I employ an entirely different set of lenses now as I listen to the Newsspeak of the network celebs. I have always been skeptical of the network big boys and girls who carefully craft and spew the news to me. I echo Mr. Goldberg's call for more equity and accuracy in news reporting.
Rating: 
Summary: It only tells the facts that all of have known forever!
Review: Mr. Goldberg has told it like it is, to the chagrin of most of the left leaning media. From the universities to the major media empires, they have been like an airplane with no left wings and flopping around in their efforts to deny it. I find everything written here to be most probably absoutly true and even forgiving for the transgressors.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, accurate, one annoyance
Review: Bernard Goldberg was a respected veteran reporter for CBS. He had won an emmy seven times for his broadcast reporting and was considered a peer among the likes of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings (at least considered a peer by viewers if not by Dan, Tom or Peter). In his book he steps forward to tell how reporting bias has interfered with truthful and honest reporting using specific examples. You'll note that I said he was a respected veteran reporter. After coming forward with an expose of the liberal bias in news reporting and how it is used to support the causes of various pressure groups instead of actually reporting news in an evenhanded manner, he was terminated from his employment. The only thing that I did not like about the book was the common thread that ran through all of it that sounded like a child ranting and raving about the local bully.... Dan said this, Peter said that, while it may be accurate, hearing the story once was enough without having it repeated again and again throughout the book. Mr. Goldberg's writing should rise above this like all the rest of the book. When it turned to actual examples of how the facts differed from the reporting in multiple situations it becomes a fascinating book. The examples are accurate and very detailed. You end up with the conviction that this is a timely book, from a respected source, providing compelling evidence of strong bias in news reporting today. I had the advantage of confirming Mr. Goldberg's accusations and depictions of the character of various high profile newscasters with a retired news producer from one of the big three networks. His comment? Right on the money.
Rating: 
Summary: What a Biased book
Review: One of the biggest pieces of evidence that Goldberg offers to support his claim that the media are liberal is his dissection of a report by Eric Engberg on the CBS Evening News called "Reality Check." In the report Engberg ridiculed Steve Forbes' flat tax plan using words like "wacky," "elixir," and "scheme." Passing an editorial off as a news report is certainly a distortion and Goldberg points this out quite well. What he does next is prevalent throughout the book; he says this is an example of liberal bias and undermines his own argument by including other facts. Goldberg points out that not only liberals were against the flat tax at the time; some conservatives were too. He mentions that Pat Buchanan and Lamar Alexander were against the plan and that Alexander even called it "nutty." Perhaps nutty is a conservative word and wacky is a liberal one. Goldberg does not attempt to explain the difference. Goldberg's labeling of Engberg's distorted news report as liberal is directly contradicted by information that he provides. He leaves quite open the possibility that Engberg might have favored Buchanan or Alexander, who were running against Forbes. In this example, Goldberg also leaves important information, two of the critics shown in Engberg's "Reality Check" were very liberal (not!) guys: House Speaker Newt Gingrich and an adviser to the President Bush (the first one). That sure is liberal bias huh? Most of the book is just ad hominem attacks against Dan Rather. Other things that Goldberg brings up are that the media are money whores. This has been a staple of the left wing complaint that the media are right wing. To strengthen his arguments Goldberg claims that he's a liberal. Yet, his views on Affirmative Action, AIDS, the homeless, and the role of women in the work place are right of center. Evidently, the author does not know what a liberal is. While the mainstream media may be liberal, Goldberg proves nothing. This book is not worth buying or reading.
Rating:
Summary: Good to see an admition of what everyone knows.
Review: First of all, I am conservative. Mr. Goldberg admits he is liberal, and his book is good and instructive, however his liberal bias is evident even when he writes about it. For example, on p.56, he writes "I noticed that we pointedly identifiy conservatives as conservatives, but for some crazy reason didn't bother to identify liberals as liberals". True!Actually, the media routinely identify many conservatives with additional expletives, such as "extreme", "right-wing", and "arch" conservative, in order to make them appear further from the "main stream". Only once in the book (on page 59) he admits to the media use of the "arch-conservative" word. I found his relating of the power of Dan Rather at CBS to be informative (CBS had a V.P. "in charge of (pleasing)Dan Rather.") In discussing the far-left feminist he says "McKinnon (Catharine) is the feminist ideologue who had famously implied that all sexual intercourse is rape". She didn't imply it at all, she boldly stated it, and presumably wants us to believe it. Mr. Goldberg's book is great for three chapters, but then he seems to have run out of anything to say, but that did't stop him. With quite a bit more research he could have undoubtedly written a great book, but this isn't it. Get it from the library, this probably isn't one you'll want to keep.
Rating:
Summary: BIAS -Accurate as far as it goes
Review: Well written, with just a little self indulgent wimpering.
Bernard Goldberg has pretty well covered the cause of liberal bias in the major news programs, but does little to show the cause/effect of this bias, and it is in the effect that the media has shaped modern America.
Bernie touches a bit on the "working mother", and the problems that their children encounter. He mentions (in passing) Affirmative Action, taxes, right wing nuts (his words), and the in-ability to hold a intelligent conversation on anything that is "verboten" in the PC dictionary.
Perhaps in his follow-up book, Bernie (a self described liberal)will explain the damage that the liberal (midia)establishment has delivered to the American culture. Items he should cover include:
1. The liberal blessing for the NEA to deny a good education to a large portion of the minority community in America, and the implications for the future.
2. The denigrating of minority achievement by the promotion of affirmative action (You didn't earn this --it was given to you)
3. The Tax and Waste policy of the liberals, and all of the good that was not done, because the money went elsewhere.
4. The implications of the "class warfare" programs promoted by the liberals, as a danger to the country into a them/us mentality.
5. The liberal tax code that punishes achievement and rewards sloth and irresponsibility. I eagerly await Bernie's sequel. Bruce Hood
Rating:
Summary: The Bias in the book Bias
Review: Bernard Goldberg's book Bias points out the obvious bias in the media. He gives Dan Rather, Tom Browkaw and Peter Jennings "god-like" status. I do not believe, for one minute, that these anchors have the power that he attributes to them. They are just puppets who mouth the bias and the agenda of the owners of CBS, NBC and so on.
There is a litmus test for this: How long do you think any one of these anchors would last if they critcized Israel or supported the Palestinians? Goldberg gives these anchors credit for too much clout. They have none. Golberg also writes an entire chapter on the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict. He points out that the media is unfair to the Israeli cause. This is not only untrue, but it shows his bias. The media never points out the suffering of the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis. I think that Goldberg should write a book about his own bias. Much of what Golberg says is true, for example, the persecution of Christianity and the Christian principles. Just look at the trashy sit-coms, commercials and almost all other programs which are filled with sex and violence. Networks love putting on trash like this. No decent producer would put his name on the programs whose themes degrade humanity like these programs do so well.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but not great
Review: I'm still trying to figure out what I think about this book. On the one hand, it does a good job of showing what many people know - that folks in the media are overwhelmingly liberal on many issues. His anecdotes are pretty illuminating in showing how conceited and arrogant some of the people at CBS News acted when dealing with complaints of slanted reporting. But what bugs me about the book is that it tends to become little more than a ranting against Andrew Hayward, Dan Rather and a couple of other CBS honchos. Another thing that really bugged me was the lack of any footnotes. How does Goldberg remember word-for-word dialogue between himself and various people? And the several pages at the end of the book of copies of accolades he has received for his "courage" in speaking out struck me as pretty cheesy. All in all, it was a good book and a very fast read. But if you are looking for "THE" definitive book that exposes media bias, this is not it. It flows like a thought process at times (although sometimes, the thought is not completed - like his tale of how he was going to do a story to expose the media lies about the number of homeless in the country; He never tells us what happens to his "very controversial" story). Sometimes you shake your head in disbelief at how biased some reporters are; other times you find yourself shaking your head at how much of a rant Goldberg is going on. Like I said, it is a quick, good read, but it is not the definitive book on media bias.
Rating:
Summary: Superb! The truth about the media from a liberal!
Review: Fianlly, a self-proclaimed liberal journalist has the temerity to expose the truth about liberal bias as it exists in today's mainstream media. If you already believed that the media tilted leftward, this book will simply appall you with its many examples. If you felt the media was center or even right of center, reading this book will clearly show you the lenghts the media goes to to give our news a liberal bias. Maybe this book will finally shake some people loose in the liberal media elite and show them the errors of their ways.
| 
