Rating: 
Summary: Whiny but Good
Review: Two aspects of this book are worthy of mention. Goldberg complains about the treatment he received at the hands of CBS and "The Dan." In the midst of this narrative, Goldberg manages an eye-opening damning of the main stream media.Bernard Goldberg was mistreated by CBS, of this, I have no doubt. His book, however would have been better served by a little less complaint and more focus on the case which his mistreatment contributes to. That the elite media is liberally biased when it comes to the big social issues of the day. He's right, of course, and the other aspect of the book worth mention is that it's an excellent eye-opener. Every American should read this book. We've been seeing our world through liberal colored glasses, and it's time we took them off to get an honest view of what's really hapenning.
Rating: 
Summary: Disgruntled employee complains
Review: Contradictory and self-serving. Goldberg was playing in the big time network business and had an even bigger ego than talent. He didn't get what he wanted so he went off and made up some stories about how bad he was treated. No market for losing whiners. So it had to be a conspiracy. Those cursed left wingers. The sad truth is that American television networks have let George Bush and the American right wing get away with murder, in some cases literally. They are cowed and afraid. Routinely, just as Goldberg would approve, reporters spout out the latest nonsense from the White HOuse or some other government Agency -- headed by a political appointee. Everyone knows it's nonsense, but no one dares tell the truth.
Rating: 
Summary: Could have been a New Yorker article . . .
Review: had brevity been his strength. Except the New Yorker editors might have required a little more of Mr. Goldberg than his editors here required. Tempest in a teapot. "How to turn an anecdote from your life into a cash stream" should be the subtitle.
Rating: 
Summary: The most important book of our generation
Review: Both the for and against arguments for this book tend to miss the point entirely, which is why an honest look at this book is an absolute necessity in our strict, partisan society. Bernard Goldberg, a SELF-PROFESSED LIBERAL (he voted for McGovern, for crying out loud!) and authority on straight journalism, makes an airtight case for liberal bias in the media. It's heartbreaking to see such a well thought out work being grouped with the likes of Ann Coulter and Bill OReilly in the Amazon sales charts, because that tells me that people are missing something special about this book. Goldberg argues against a vast liberal conspiracy within the media in favor of an argument which rings infinitely more true: that the media has no inkling that they're leaning to the left, and in fact assume that the left is dead on center. It's telling that when a man who shares the same ideology with the vast majority of his peers criticizes those peers for showing bias when they're supposed to be the voice of America, he's grouped in with the most crazed, foaming-at-the-mouth conservative idiots you can find. Telling, and tragic. Conservatives should read this book so that they can begin to quote FACTS instead of RUSH when talking about a liberal bias in the media. Liberals should read this book -- and, when doing so, stop towing the party line, even if just for the afternoon it takes to read the thing -- so that they can spot this bias themselves and maybe attempt to put a stop to the attempted homogenization of American ideas by the nightly news (a concept which SHOULD fall within any self-respecting liberal's ideological parameters). And everyone else (you know, the MAJORITY of the country who have mixed opinions about the various issues which arise every day instead of basic platform slants, and who are the REAL vocal majority who have been arguing this point for the past thirty-odd years and becoming apathetic to major network news because of it) should read this book so you can get nice and ticked off and maybe rekindle some of that passion for what you believe in. I call this the most important book of our generation because it is NOT a proponent of any ideology so much as a call for a recognition that the fact-checkers and watchdogs too often fall prey to their OWN ideology, and that when the most prolific communicator of ideas edges into propoganda and social manipulation, we're all the worse for wear. Maybe once enough people recognize the problem it can be repaired, and we can get back to calling it "the news" instead of "the media".
Rating:
Summary: a real eye-opener
Review: certainly not a book of liberal-bashing conservatives, Golberg is a liberal himself. He is not bitter and is certainly not a traitor, but rather exposes some of the blatant abuses and biases of the liberal media that so deeply affect the American public. Shedding some light on feminism, AIDS, affirmative action, and other controversial public issues, Goldberg makes a great and exciting case for the biggest problems that face modern-day media and the moguls (like Andrew Heyward and Dan Rather of CBS) that run the channels. A very exciting and interesting read.
Rating:
Summary: Thoughtful writing from a respected CBS reporter
Review: The most dangerous form of bias, in my view, comes when the reporter presents his/her opinion as fact, unworthy of critical thought. Bernard's remains the best of the books on this topic, because it doesn't rant and is thoughtfully written by a respected 28-year CBS veteran. It specifically denies there's any systemic liberal conspiracy, nor a Democrat vs. Republican reporting bias. Rather, it unveils how reporter's and editor's personal biases (in several forms, but especially a too-common elitism) unconsciously influence how they report and present the news. Most of those who are biased truly don't know it - which is why when confronted, they deny it so heatedly. I think Rush Limbaugh is an idiot, Sean Hannity an unlistenable blowhard, and Michael Savage a truly hateful human, but none of them deny they're conservative. The incredible, venom-filled overreaction by CBS to Mr. Goldberg's initial (and rather mild) whistle-blowing article in 1996 truly indicates he'd struck a nerve and exposed an uncomfortable truth. It is not without irony that the network that introduced America to corporate whistle-blowing (via "60 Minutes") couldn't handle the lens being turned on itself. A complaint has been voiced that Mr. Goldberg spends too much time discussing CBS News. Yet CBS is where he spent his career and it's an INSIDERS account - would we rather he speculate about organizations where he had no personal experience? Another complaint has been the lack of footnoting or endnotes - as if this is a scholarly work and not a memoir (and how many truly bad Ph.D. dissertations carry voluminous notes?) Bernard's book is shorter but better-written and better balanced than Alterman's, and is full of eye-opening quotes from those who actually present the news (vs. those who complain about it). Regardless of your political leanings, you'll derive much food for discussion here. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: An Interesting Argument For Liberal Bias In The Media
Review: What makes Bernard Goldberg's case for liberal bias in media of interest is his history with CBS. The story of his outting his colleagues is half the fun of the book, and the claims he makes about the reactions of other big-name insiders to his charges make it clear: either Bernard is lying about some of their reactions, or his former colleagues did, and presumabley still do, slant leftward in the way they cover the news. Despite the arguments put forth by some books and some reviewers of this book, it is difficult to conclude that Bernard Goldberg is/was lying when he charged that one former boss even admitted to liberal bias in the industry, given the polls that indicate the heavy leftward slant of journalism students and the proportion of journalists that vote Democrat (even in 1992, when Clinton had two marginally conservative opponents to choose from, polls indicated that around 90% or more of journalists voted for the most-liberal of the three). Those who claim he is a tool of big business or just a bitter liar appear to be side-stepping the issues he raises in favor of ad hominem attacks. Where Bernard Goldberg goes wrong, and what at the same time defeats the arguments of his critics who seek to prove that the media most often attains an objective or middle-ground perspective in the continuum between liberalism and conservatism while reporting on news, is the very philosophy that undergirds such a notion: that the hundreds and thousands of journalists of the last several decades could disregard their own personal political biases is an almost inherently left-thinking way of viewing human nature. (Those who disagree would do well to read Thomas Sowell's 'A Conflict of Visions' to better understand this point.) Historically, news outlets have been overtly aligned with political movements, and most claims that news outlets can be 'neutral' seem to have come about only in the past century or so with the rise in popularity of socialist philosophies to which the claim is tied to. On the other hand, that historical view best fits the conservative way of viewing human nature. This may be why a liberal like Al Franken says that Fox News is slanted toward the right while CNN is objective, since to a left-winger, left-wing bias seems objective, while to a right-winger, the right-wing bias of Fox News seems more in-line with the truth as they know it. It is our finite knowledge and limited ability to learn that makes objectivity impossible to ascertain for once and for all. So when Goldberg proposes that the solution to media bias is for the media be ashamed of it and to try to wash themselves of it, he takes an unrealistic position that is indicative of his own personal liberalistic worldview. (That is not intended as an attack on Goldberg, and in fact is proof that he isn't a knowing pawn of some conservative conspiracy.) The only solution is to end the charade of perfect objectivity in news reporting. Fox News, like all other media, can only be "fair" in the sense that they don't report anything other than what they know to be the truth, and they cannot be "balanced" perfectly in the middle of the liberal-conservative spectrum but can only try to air voices that best represent beliefs from across that spectrum; and again, since like all human endeavors this will never be done perfectly, the only solution is to admit the tilt you may have in giving the news. I give this book a good rating because, despite his failure to present a realistic solution, the author presents some very good proofs in making his case for the liberal bias in major network reporting, much of it from inside knowledge. My opinion after reading this book and others is that presently leftward bias exists identifiably in the reporting of the NYT and Wash. Post (which filters down throughout most of the rest of the newspaper industry); CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN; major mainstream magazines such as Time, Newsweek, and also especially magazines marketed to young women (Cosmo, Elle, Ms., etc.); and especially state-run media reporting, such as from NPR and PBS, plus the CBC and BBC; while 'talk radio', Fox News, probably the most popular shows on MSNBC, and the token magazines (Weekly Standard, Human Events, etc.) have a right-wing bias (which all, except the networks, admit). I should also say that the reviewer who asserts that Goldberg defeats his own thesis later in the book ought to consider institutionalized hypocrisy as the answer to that supposed 'contradiction.' The same can be seen with politicians in general, who are often eager to give away other people's money in order to seem compassionate, but at the same time make sure to keep a hold on their own wealth.
Rating:
Summary: Corporate Propaganda
Review: The Media doesn't have a liberal or a conservative slant as much as a pro-corporate slant. The isssues which are not socially conservative (pro- choice, secularism, gay rights, "politcal correctness") are often given as examples of liberal bias, but when it comes to financial issues and foriegn relations, the American press is very conservative, favoring big-business. Nowadays the mainstream American press trys to tell liberals what they believe and convince conservatives what politcal stances they should take. Surveying international news, especially financial publications in English, leads one to see that American news exploits both sides and B Goldberg continues this by being entirely self-serving in writing this book. Read the Financial Times of London instead- That should satisfy those of any political persuasion
Rating:
Summary: Poor Widdle Bernie
Review: This is a book penned by a bitter man. He did not have the career at CBS he thought he should, so he comes up with this. If he was sitting in Dan Rather's seat, do you think this book would have been written? I think the book is a pretty good indicator of exactly WHY Bernie had a mediocre career.
Rating:
Summary: 'Bias' suffers by self-contradiction
Review: It isn't really necessary to read reviews or counter-arguments to find the fundamental flaw in Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" - he points it out himself in Chapter 10.
Speaking of media leaders, he says "They're just businessmen doing what businessmen do. It's in their nature to make the bottom line the top priority. The color they care most about is green. What could be more American than that?" (Paperback edition, page 158).
Throughout the tenth chapter, 'Where Thieves and Pimps Run Free,' Goldberg makes this claim, that media coverage is solely profit-driven, and he is indeed borne out by many more reputable authors. This effectively disproves both of his central theses - that American news media are skewed by a prevailing liberal bias, and that this bias is out of synch with the American public.
If, as seems to be the case, profit is the driving force behind all network decisions, liberal bias can hardly have much effect, can it? When the question asked of a story is "will it sell?," there can be no doubt that it will be run whether it supports the GOP or the DNC. It is clear that this shows that news agencies are not liberal but apolitically avaricious.
Even assuming - and this is far from clear - that network news does tend to lean leftwards, there is only one way that this situation could have arisen - it must be a selling point. A self-respecting "cruel and shallow money trench" (153, quoting and agreeing with Hunter S. Thompson) would show the left in glowing terms only if "the networks' research departments did studies discovering that ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox could make more money." If liberal harangues are what the public is willing to watch and to pay for, is it bias to provide them?
With his own words in Chapter 10, Goldberg has provided a nearly unanswerable rebuttal to his own claims, showing that "there isn't enough ideology in the average network to fill a thimble." Either the liberal bias doesn't exist, or it held, not by the media, but by the American people.
|
