Rating: 
Summary: Another Republican Book Telling them HOW and WHAT to believe
Review: We all know the republican/conservative tactic of telling fellow believers how to think, what to believe,etc. Goldberg does a fine job of this in case you were needing some reassurance. A friend mentioned they saw this book under the arm of our president Bush. Perhaps he too was in need of being convinced that the media is "liberal." For those conservatives/republicans that see the truth and realize the media is what it is (unbiased) but do not want to be ousted from their fellow conservatives, this is the book for you. For those republicans that realize that the media is far from liberal and you have independent thought and don't care what fellow conserves think of you, don't waste your time.
Rating: 
Summary: Enlightening to the Simple Minded
Review: This book is one mans perspective from having been on the inside for 30 years. I do agree with his opinion. But, it did not take his book to enlighten me. Any intelligent individual with the cognitive ability to process and interpret data should already be aware of the biased information disseminated by all media; be it print, radio, or TV. Members of our society need to be critical thinkers when any news story is reported and analyze both the data reported and the data that has failed to be reported. Think who or what will beneifit from this news story. Just because it is reported on the TV or in the newspaper does not make it true. Remember all media is a business and any business is in operation for one purpose; to earn a profit. Every reporter I know of is a human being and human beings have prejudices. And, every media organization desires ratings and thus profits. Everyone and every group has their own agendas. Keep an open mind and be skeptical, do some of your own research and form an educated opinion; not an opinion formed for you by the media. My question is, why did Bernard Goldberg wait til now after all of these years to say or do something about this known bias?
Rating:
Summary: Liberals are fuming
Review: As I sit here reading some of the comical reviews of this book, I cannot help wondering how right Mr. Goldberg really was. There appears to be exactly two classes of people who would review this book, and it seems quite obvious that neither class actually spent any time reading the book. On one side, you have the [biased] right-wingers praising the book, most of them saying that "its about time someone wrote what we all knew already". Though it is true that most reasoning people recognize that there is an obvious and extreme bias in the Big Three (ABC, NBC, and CBS), most of this crowd seems unable to recognize the nature of the bias, which Mr. Goldberg quite thoughtfully documents. On the other side, you have the [biased] left-wingers crying foul and either claiming that Mr. Goldberg is an idiot and there really is no bias, or they are claiming that he is just a hateful man looking to make his ex-employers look bad. Of the former, they would fit right in with the Big Three because, as Mr. Goldberg correctly points out, they don't see the bias because they think their point of view is automatically correct and anyone who doesn't agree with them is just stupid, no matter what facts are available to back up opposing views. They are the ones who claim that they "don't know a single person who voted for Nixon," even though Nixon was elected by 49 out of 50 States, and they aren't lying because everyone they know thinks exactly like they do. Of the later, one may argue that Mr. Goldberg had an agenda in writing the book, but that does not make the book any less factual. The bottom line is that the conclusion that this book draws, that the television media is predominantly biased to the left in its reporting, is not something that most people are just now discovering. What is new, though, is the real nature of the bias, which is what Mr. Goldberg documents so well. No, there isn't some vast left-wing conspiracy to thrust Marxism upon the American people through the television media. The bias is much worse than that. Fortunately, the vast majority of American viewers do indeed recognize this bias, and they have decided to stop watching. This, of course, means such biased reporting is on the decline and soon will be a relic of the past.
Rating: 
Summary: AFFIRMATION AT LAST!
Review: Bernard Goldberg's new book, Bias, is an affirmation of the "left slanted" nature of the media. The realization that there are not only accepted, but actually endorsed policies of favorable bias in the mainstream media toward liberalism, special interests, and the Democratic Party will likely not surprise most readers. The importance of Mr. Goldberg's book may be that a news man, with such a long career, and with the amount of acclaim and respect that the author is afforded, has at last confirmed this bias! In this book, Mr. Goldberg tells all and drops more than a few big names. He insists that his motivation for writing this book is his frustration after years of battling for balanced reporting. One would believe this to be true considering the many bridges that he has surely burned with this publication. This book is worth the read.
Rating: 
Summary: Shocking Anecdotes About the Biased Media
Review: One of the most recent literary contributions to the political world is, "Bias, A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News," by a true long-time news veteran, Bernard Goldberg. Much hoopla was made prior to the first publication of this controversial work, which effectively guaranteed its place on the NY Times Bestseller list. Since Goldberg first went public with his original thesis, that the media has a severe liberal bias, he has been attacked and labeled everything from a traitor to a raving lunatic, mostly by his previous comrades. One of his most powerful and vocal critics has been Dan Rather, the famed CBS Network Anchor. And Goldberg makes a bold-faced multi-chapter attack on Rather as well. According to Goldberg, the controversy started in 1996 when he wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal in response to a particularly biased "news" report on Steve Forbes' flat-tax plan, reported by Eric Engberg. "Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir, good for everything that ails us," Engberg mocked. Yet, as Goldberg points out, the Forbes plan was supported by Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, and a slew of respected economists. Yet no opinion in support of Forbes was presented. Obviously the use of the words "scheme" and "elixir" were more signs that there was a clear bias in the reporting. In chapter one, Goldberg notes, "Engberg's piece - its strident, mocking tone, its lack of objectivity, its purposeful omission of anyone who supported the flat tax - was like a TV campaign commercial paid for by Opponents of the Steve Forbes Flat Tax." Goldberg was through complaining to CBS producers. He made the fateful step and declared war on the liberal media elite in CBS News, by writing for the WSJ and outlining his view of these propagandists. The next couple of chapters are, for the most part, devoted to ridiculing Dan Rather and his followers. Intertwined into the almost unbelievable anecdotes are undeniable examples of extreme bias. The case is solid. Chapter four, "Identity Politics", seems to get to the core issue. Goldberg speaks of one particularly disturbing conversation with Rather; "What do you call the New York Times editorial page?" I asked him, since he had written op-eds for that paper. "Middle of the road," he said without missing a beat. "You don't think the New York Times has a liberal editorial page?" I asked him, not believing what I had just heard. "No," he said, "middle of the road." --- And Rather is supposed to be a respectable newsperson. Yet, judging by this dialogue, he seems to be quite out of touch with reality. Goldberg goes on to eloquently point out that there is no Left-wing conspiracy to espouse liberal views. In actuality, the truth is far worse. These people are so out of touch, that they actually think they are "middle of the road." That is precisely why anyone who is conservative is "right-wing" and all liberals are simply "socially conscious" according to the mainstream media. This book is chock full of concrete examples of bias, hypocrisy, and double standards. One distressing example Goldberg discusses is the liberal reporting on the homeless where they are portrayed as white, middle class families who just happen to be down on their luck. The truth is quite different. Statistically, the homeless are substance abusers and the mentally ill. Only a sliver of the homeless fall into the category that the media wants us to believe they're in. Of course, this reporting varies dramatically according to which party has the Presidency at that particular time. Another great example of liberal double standards is found in Chapter 9, "Targeting Men." Goldberg wrote,
... Katie Couric, on NBC, asked a bride who had been jilted at the altar about a proper remedy: "Have you considered castration as an option?" And what if Matt Lauer asked the same of a jolted groom? Goldberg points out the obvious that if Lauer dared to utter, "Have you considered the option of cutting off her breasts?" He would certainly be fired immediately. Later chapters only drive the point home further. "The Most Important Story You Never Saw on TV" is my favorite chapter. So, I'll save it for you to at least browse for yourself in the bookstore. More, equally solid, examples of many other types of bias fill the pages of this book. In the finale, Goldberg neatly wraps up by "connecting the dots" in such a fashion so as to show why this whole book is very relevant today, in our war against terrorism. If you're looking for a tidy little reader that will make your blood boil and change the way you watch the news, this is it. And at 232 pages to the back cover, it's a quick and casual read as well.
Rating:
Summary: ... or how Goldberg distorts the facts
Review: Leaving aside Goldberg's vengeful tone and flimsy evidence, his hypothesis is false. As a former resident of the US and a keen reader of newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic, the notion that the media are dominated by liberal viewpoints is bizarre. Mainstream media seem to reflect the opinions of the party in power, while the party in power seems to reflect the opinions of big business. There is little real difference between Republicans and Democrats when they get into power. What passes for a "liberal" viewpoint in the media does not really veer far from the centre line. True liberal voices are simply not provided with the opportunity to put their cases forward. If I dare to mention the rights of Palestinians, I am labelled anti-Semite. If I dare to question the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, I am labelled anti-American. These are important questions and issues that are not asked or raised. Goldberg's book could have tried to question the role of the media, but did not. Try any of Noam Chomsky's books if you want to read insightful analysis.
Rating: 
Summary: That insidious American "Left"
Review: If you want to read about Goldberg's top ten gripes about Dan Rather, this is the book for you. If you want serious analysis of the media vis-à-vis American political life, look elsewhere. It is beyond me how anyone can seriously use terms like "left-wing media" in the United States. In comparison with many modern European democracies, the American "Left" would come out, at best, as centrist, if not right of center - Marxism hasn't been a serious intellectual idea in the USA, politically speaking, since, say, the 1920s. Take a look at present-day Italy, or even Germany, for that matter, and you'll see what I'm talking about: American political discourse is pretty vanilla. Is media bias a bad thing? I'd say yes, with qualifications: if it truly were possible (and desirable) to be 100% objective all the time, and; if there were no media outlets with a politically opposed bias to counterbalance the supposed streams of untruths and misrepresentations spouted forth by the so-called "liberal media." Now, I'm not sure that the former is actually possible. Discounting that, however, there clearly are "conservative" media outlets in the US (such as Fox News) which are more than happy to counterbalance the "leftist"-tinged views of the world that Dan Rather and cohorts apparently subject the public to. That, and, of course, a plethora of print media spanning the whole range of political orientations, mainstream to extremist. So what are we supposed to get upset about? If people can detect bias in the media - great! That means they can think. If they don't like what they hear, then it is incumbent upon them to get their news from other sources. With all this in mind, this book is basically irrelevent, and ends up being little more than an embittered rant by a former network correspondent with an ax to grind.
Rating:
Summary: A Stunning Indictment and Unmasking of the Media
Review: Bernard Goldberg's book documents what many of us have known for a long time--that the media reports the news through the prism of liberal thinking. What I did not know was just how pervasive and blatant this unbalance had become. And this comes from someone who was once a part of this machine of misinformation. Goldberg cites many compelling and enraging examples of how the media reports that which furthers its own liberal worldview, while ignoring stories and analysis that might call into questions many of the assumptions of modern day liberalism. Goldberg's book is equal parts fascinating and frustrating. It is frustrating to see a medium with such reach and influence become such an unapologetic propaganda forum for liberalism. It is particularly galling to see how unwilling these "broad minded liberals" are to self exam as well as their inability to brook criticism. The black-balling of Goldberg after daring to speak out is particularly shameful. Some will say Goldberg's book is just axe grinding against an employer who avenged his "disloyalty." But it must be remembered that Goldberg was a member of the CBS news teams in good standing for decades. His mistreatment by CBS did not pre-date his Wall Street Journal editorial that exposed CBS's bias. Rather, it was that editorial which precipitated CBS's McCarthy-like black listing of Goldberg. Also, some will say Goldberg is just a tool of conservatives. But Goldberg makes clear he has never voted for a Republican president and is himself a liberal. That speaking out against liberalism's excesses makes Goldberg somehow suspect among the left speaks of the narrowness and intolerance of many in today's liberal movement. My main criticism of the book is Goldberg's unrelenting sarcasm. While he is often humorous which makes the book more interesting to read, it is a little over the top at times. Also, a couple of the chapters such as the one on AIDs is a little overly labored. Despite these shortcomings, I do hope his book will be very widely read. Far too many people in our country rely on TV news as their soul source for news and information. People need to read this book to see the biased swill they're being fed by people who Goldberg says do not understand there is any other way of thinking besides liberalism.
Rating:
Summary: A new angle on media criticism; exposes a lot; quick read
Review: I remember reading the op-ed piece by Bernard Goldberg in the Wall Street Journal in 1996, and I recall being pretty impressed. That a highly regarded news reporter would raise some serious doubts about how his company--his industry--reported news was praiseworthy in and of itself, in my mind. However, I had no idea that it would blow up so big as to produce a book like "Bias," by Mr. Goldberg himself. You may have already read something from other authors (e.g., Dennis Prager, Larry Elder) who have taken it upon themselves to expose the hypocritical, left-leaning, unobjective and corrupt (not all my words) forces that have worked their way into the news media and minds of their figureheads who blab at us from our TV sets. Yes, I believe: 1) that the mainstream media slants left, 2) that the network news frames the coverage and discussion so as to mold a "liberal" mindset, and 3) that much of the news that ought to be reported doesn't make it into our homes. Still, with all the objectivity I can muster, I will say that "Bias" is quite a revealing book that will appeal to everyone . . . well, almost. What I liked most about this book is that the author makes examples of real situations and real media moguls in getting across his point about how influential a political/social predisposition can be in reporting news. He truly knows all the players. Aside from the important issues of homelessness and drug abuse, the news events most discussed are ones which had Americans (perhaps most of the world) glued to the television during the past decade: the Oklahoma City Bombing, the presidential scandals, and the terrorist attacks of last September 11. The back-and-forth between Mr. Goldberg and his bosses was, on one hand, hard to believe, but on the other, something that anyone who's ever crossed a supervisor (even unwittingly) can relate to. Even in the media, the influence peddlers will say and do whatever they have to in order to pump up their agendas AND the bottom line. The fact that I flew through this book tells me that I must have enjoyed it a lot. I really did. There was one major bad vibe though: I wasn't wild about the recurring use of derogatory names for a number of the author's detractors (Dan Rather, among numerous others), gratuitous profanity (just the four-letter words NOT in quotations), and some silly argumentative analogies, which I feel made Mr. Goldberg seem a little too rant-stricken. My preference would have been for a more level-headed diatribe . . . if that's possible. Sounds more upstanding, you know. Overall, I'd say that the strength of this book is its "insider's view," and for that I'd recommend it to almost anyone except those possessing a strong affinity for mainstream political/social commentary.
Rating:
Summary: An important book filled with things you already knew.
Review: To any free thinking individual, the things that Bernie Goldberg has to say are nothing new. There is a liberal bias in network news. But Goldberg holds that this bias is not intentional, but is seen as "middle of the road," reasonable, rational viewpoints and anything else is crazy. This is why conservatives are always "right wing" and liberals are labeled as "experts" on the network news and telezine programs, like 60 Minutes. Golberg has the inside knowledge that really drives the point home, and who would've thought that Dan Rather was such a ... to work for. He's got a lot to answer for and Goldberg is calling him to task. This book is a must read for anyone interested in being aware of the slight of presentation in our so-called information givers. At least Fox News reporters have the honesty to call themselves analysts instead of reporters. Read this book.
| 
