Rating: 
Summary: Not a great book, but makes an important point
Review: I have already reviewed "Bias" once. The reason for the second review: Unlike some of the reviewers who gave it very low ratings, I actually read the book! Of all the negative reviews I have read, not a single one addressed issues or facts from Goldberg's book. Instead, they dredge up other issues that are not relevant to a review of Goldberg's book. Goldberg lays out his extensive list of "liberal credentials", so anyone who accuses him of being a right wing or conservative fanatic has obviously not read the book. Additionally, I wish the Chomsky-ites out there would only review books they have actually read, stop making ad hominum attacks agains Goldberg, and stop making pitches for their own leftist guru's writings in a spot where they are supposed to be reviewing Goldberg's book. Now to the review: "Bias" gives some important evidence to support the allegation that the media is biased to the left, however the book is a little light on content. The "hard" content it has is quite compelling, but Goldberg spends too much time on fluff. Some of the more compelling stuff he brings up include several examples of liberal slant, and the poll results of Washington journalist that show they are overwhelmingly liberal and vote overwhelmingly Democratic. This book is a short and easy read, and is worth the time it takes to finish it.
Rating: 
Summary: It's all in the details
Review: I expected this to be a generalization of media bias. What I found were specific examples of bias, which added credibility to the book. I found it very enlightening. And you don't have to be a conservative to understand or agree with his findings.
Rating:
Summary: Right on target... for the most part
Review: This book was a joy to read, and confirmed what I'd already thought about the "big three". The issue is not Republicans or Democrats, as Goldberg says; it's about how the media in effect "take sides" on the important issues of the day. Like most who speak out about media bias, they themselves end up being the target of criticism, not the issue they raise. I thought the best chapter was "The Most Important Story You Never Saw on TV", which concerns itself with "working moms" and how the media try to avoid saying anything about the negative aspects of mothers being out in the workforce. The worst chapter was "Connecting the Dots... to Terrorism". Especially when Mr. Goldberg gets to talking about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and how it's played in the media. The subject comes up when he talks about how the networks covered the Sept. 11th attack. He seems to imply that the coverage is pro-Arab, but I have never had that impression from watching the networks. I think Goldberg, being Jewish, and quoting an aritcle by Fiamma Nirenstein, also Jewish, loses credibility when examining how this conflict is portrayed. The book forces one to remember that when the evening news is put together, every word is carefully scripted to convey a certain message. The news organizations are trying to tell you how you should think about an event, and whether or not something is important. Anyone who gets their news from someplace other than ABC, CBS, or NBC, and then tunes in and sees how they present a story can clearly see how they advocate certain positions. All in all this was a great book, an important book.
Rating: 
Summary: Many inacuracies...
Review: Goldbergs main "Exhibit A" is based on a CBS Evening News report scrutinizing a flat-tax proposal made by Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes. Consider the four flat-tax critics featured in the segment: House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an adviser to the senior President Bush, a former Nixon era IRS commissioner, and a tax expert. A single segment featuring mostly right-of-center sources criticizing one Republican's tax proposal is hardly smoking-gun evidence of a left-wing media tilt. Yet five years later the CBS flat-tax report is still Goldberg's "Exhibit A," the main evidence of liberal bias in his skimpy book. Also on page 134, Goldberg says this about a NYTimes piece supposedly "bashing men": <>Want to know what the story was really about? Insects. It's a 1994 science desk article that says this: <>You get the picture. Goldberg plays far too fast and loose with his facts and this book simply cannot be taken seriously. He is just a disgruntled reporter who can't make money except to go on right-wing hateradio and shill his book.
Rating:
Summary: Network news exposed
Review: Finally, someone with wisdom, courage, and respectability tells it like it is with Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Eric Engberg and the vast majority of others in the mainstream media. This someone is the insider from CBS News, Bernard Goldberg. If you've never considered how America is being programmed night after night with "the Liberal agenda" just by viewing the nightly news, then you need to read "Bias."
Rating:
Summary: Truth, not tolerance!
Review: Regardless of what some 'former resident of the USA' has to say, this is a great book, right up there with Barbara Olson's expose of the Clintbleeps. What we need now is reporting of the news, not slanting fictionalized tripe which is what we get now from TNN (Taliban News Network, to quote Michael Savage). I'm Canadian by birth and have lived all over this planet and the truth is that the United States of America is THE greatest country in the WORLD... if you get your 'news' from the 'news media bias', you wouldn't appreciate the truth of that statement! Having to read between the lines all the time is an extremely frustrating situation. Thank you Bernard for this book! Now please write another one and NAME NAMES! God Bless you and God (who is not spelled 'allah') BLESS AMERICA!!
Rating:
Summary: A Better Solution
Review: Sure, this book tells us what many already have known for a long time. There is a liberal bias in the media. Is that necessarily wrong, as long as everyone knows it? The answer is , yes and no. Yes, if it is intentional. No, if it is untentional. That's where I agree with the January 10th review of "West Point" author Norman Thomas Remick whose review is the only one I have read that offers a solution. Unintentional is human nature. Intentional is wrongdoing. And, we need a better way of self regulating a free press. West Point's toleration clause is a good idea. But, I don't see how Remick thinks others in the media will know whether a bias is intentional or unintentional. Maybe he can give us more details to help us understand. It is certainly an idea that merits further pursuit. Personally, I think a better solution is to do something to assure that news reporting is only what freedom of the press was originally intended to assure --- reporting "who", "what", "where, and "when" --- the facts. As media often state: "the following ... is not necessarily the opinion of this (station, paper, etc)", they should also be required to clearly state: "the following is ONLY the opinion of this ... (station, paper, etc) when reporting the "why" part of news. I think that is a better solution. Nevertheless, now that I have finished reading Mr. Goldberg's courageous book "Bias", I'll check out other books, including what Remick has to offer in "West Point".
Rating:
Summary: Exposing Media's Left Wing Bias
Review: This is an excellent expose of media's virtual 100% liberal bias This fact based book is laced together by Mr. Goldberg's long experience in the elite media. Getting almost no attention in the media elite, which Goldberg mercilessly skewers, this book cogently presents the evidence that makes the seemingly irrefutable point that our media engages in selective reporting and partisan boosterism for liberals. It is interesting that liberals have not stood up and argued against the book's facts and conclusion. Unfortunately, this book has almost no chance of changing the way the news is presented. Almost everyone that becomes a member of the media is left-wing, very left-wing, before they even join the profession. When they join, it's like becoming part of a family of kindred spirits, trying their best not to do, say, or write anything that anger this ruthless, liberal hegemony in the media. It is a must read for anyone who wants to make up his mind for himself and not be brainwashed by liberals in the media.
Rating:
Summary: Thin read, good facts
Review: While it was a fairly lightweight book, it does provide plausible evidence of the liberal distortion that exists not just in network news, but in nearly all news vehicles. How do you think Bill Clinton got elected in the first place? The book tells you exactly what you would expect to hear. But buy it anyway just to send a message!
Rating:
Summary: Affirms the obvious but well worth your time nonetheless
Review: If Mr. Goldberg were a professional writer, I'm sure he could have written a more engaging book, but what he has produced is certainly good enough to make the points he chooses to make. The seminal point he makes is that liberals, who greatly outnumber conservatives in the mainstream broadcast media, do not really appreciate what constitutes mainstream thought outside their liberal east coast enclaves. Therefore, they label anyone to the right of them politically as "right-wing," a (hopefully) unintentional attempt on their part to show their viewers that these weirdos need to have their opinions cast in the light as having come from, well, weirdos. But, for the most part, the conservative (or even centrist) view isn't heard at all on mainstream broadcast media. A very liberal person reading this book will completely dismiss the content of this book, because quite obviously, they don't "get it." But ask any intelligent centrist to conservative about it, and they will say the book is right on. As one of these weirdos, I've joined all the other weirdos getting my news from the Internet, various print media, and cable. The mainstream broadcast media have marginalized themselves out of my awareness for several years now.
|
