Rating: 
Summary: Confirmed my suspicions.
Review: This book is easy to read. Perhaps because the subject matter is so familiar - the TV News.
All my suspicions of bias were confirmed.
After reading this book you may choose to get your news from printed media instead.
Rating:
Summary: Quite an eye-opener
Review: Sure--it's nothing new to hear there is bias in the media. However, what I commonly miss are the "subtle tones" we read and hear everyday--the power of certain words to alter our thinking ("controversial", "scheme", "risky", etc.). It is amazing how much commentary passes for hard-hitting news coverage. I found myself reading the newspaper very differently this morning!
Rating: 
Summary: SELF-CONGRATULATORY AND EGO-STROKING
Review: Having just read Mr. Goldberg's book I would recommend anyone wanting to read it to check it out of the library. He tells us things we already know. The media is liberal!! Wow, that's news to most of us. The book was entertaining in places and informative in others but it is essentially a ego-stroking, self-congratulatory book designed to make money.He reassures us that the fact that all three networks report stories the exact same way, usually getting their stories from print sources which also spin the stories to the left, is a grand coincidence, not a deliberate policy. He does say that reporters know that if they don't spin the stories to the left it could be bad for their careers and could even lead to their being fired. Someone does the hiring, the firing, and the enforcing of the leftist line. Who and why he doesn't shed much light on. As usual neo-conservatives are raving over this book because it comes from an "insider." Neo-conservative such as Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Rilley have managed to conserve nothing but their bloated salaries. They all pay homage to open boarders, affirmative action, diversity, multiculturalism and the whole laundry list of things that "everyone that is respectible should support." That's why they are where they are. If they ever came out against any of these things do you think they would still be on the air. They are the safe and respectible conservatives. Goldberg admits that he supports all these things although he does concede that in the case of affirmative action he does not actually support discriminating against white people. It is time that someone said what the reality is, the media is not only to the left on things like abortion, gun control, etc., it is anti-western, anti-Christian and anti-white.
Rating: 
Summary: Guaranteed to be Controversial
Review: As a moderate who rarely votes Democratic but refuses to be aligned in any cause with the Moral Majority, I looked forward to reading this book for a perspective on perceived media bias. Right-wingers are so sensitive and appear to dislike anything not supportive of their cause that I have real doubt as to the credibility of their claims. Well, here is a telling expose from one of their purported enemies. Goldberg has worked at CBS for quite some time and had a close working relationship with Dan Rather. That ended in 1996 when he wrote a Wall Street Journal article concerning media bias and became persona non grata to Dan Rather. And that is one of the biggest weaknesses of the book for as much as he says he has no problem with Rather, he continues to try and get in the last word and build the case that Rather has a liberal bias and is a nasty guy to his enemies. Goldberg did manage to work another 5 years at CBS in a reduced role. Now clearly Goldberg is bitter. But his premise is that the wealthy New York media doesn't believe they have a bias as their world is so different from "flyover" Americans. While they see Right to Choice as only justified, they don't understand the religious conviction that condemns this practice. While they view Affirmative Action as an appropriate action to fairness, they've never been in a living environment with low and middle income Americans where this issue is more controversial. Once you wade through the Rather digs, Goldberg does offer about 6 distinctive treatments of liberal bias that have basis. For example, in the impeachment proceedings, Republicans walk in and are identified as Conservative Republicans while no Democrats are called Liberal Democrats. The AIDs scare is examined how the media scares the public into believing the risk to heterosexuals is much greater than it really is. Also affirmative action is examined in depth. Does he have a basis? After reading this as unbiased as possible, I believe he does. He clearly states there is not a conspiracy. Just a viewpoint not consistent with the massive constituents in America as to what is liberal and what is not. I do recommend this book to anyone wanting to examine this issue as it is powerfully written from someone who was able to see both sides of the argument.
Rating:
Summary: An Important "Inside Story"
Review: I was pleasantly surprised by "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. I had read media accounts of Goldberg's "feud" with Dan Rather and CBS, and I vaguely remembered his Wall Street Journal op-ed from several years ago. I was pleased to see that this book wasn't just a hatchet job on the "Tiffany Network," i.e., it was more than sour grapes. I found the book to be well documented and extremely well written, a real page turner for a non-fiction book. I think the chapters pointing out differences in black and white viewing habits and programming were very interesting and valuable, and the chapter on the media's avoidance of any story criticizing day care was unexpected and provocative. I was a little disappointed that Mr. Goldberg didn't pack more information from the wealth obviously available into this slim offering. Two thoughts about that: (1) he's a TV guy used to doing 2 minute stories, so this was a stretch for him, and (2) be wary of "More Bias," "Even More Bias," etc., after the commercial success of this book. (However, I'd be interested to read more about his take on the cable competitors in the news business, or on internet news, which offers many conservative voices.) Still, this one deserves its high sales numbers. Overall, a good read.
Rating:
Summary: Like campaign finance "reform"? Read Goldberg.
Review: As others have noted, this book seems padded, and the writing style would probably yield a "C" in high school English (someone please steal the exclamation point key from Goldberg's computer). That said, this is an important book because it represents a whistle-blower turning the tables on CBS and the other major media. (Shall we call them "Big Baloney"?) Boy, how sore they get when they are the target. Goldberg carefully shows how homelessness, AIDS and feminist issues are slanted by the self-righteous liberals populating the major media. Those who favor campaign finance reform must read this. After all, the huge sums raised by candidates are used to buy TV time in order to influence thinking on public issues. If that ability is restricted, it will mean giving more power to Dan, Peter and Tom who use their soap boxes night after night to frame these issues the way Democrats like.
Rating: 
Summary: Liberal bias? Puh-leeze!
Review: Goldberg, like all others of his ilk, blathers on for page after page complaining of his perceived "liberal bias" in the news. yet Goldberg and the rest of his ilk forget that the news agencies are only as liberal as the huge conservative corporations that own them. The "facts" he uncovers are little more than typical grand-standing techniques used by all news agencies and have nothing to do with being "liberal." The news is indeed distorted, but it's not a "liberal" distortion in the least. What is distorted is done for the glory of ratings, something that the left *and* the right do consistently.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I had hopes that this would be a very interesting book, as insider exposes often are. However, the first half of this book was actually just a rant against the evil CBS that shunned Mr. Goldberg for his editorial on the subject of liberal bias. Once the book starts getting to particulars of the bias, you begin to realize that he's not telling you anything you didn't know. Some of the points are interesting and the scope of the bias is definitely laid bare. However, several of his examples are poorly supported and leave you feeling that he is stretching things to support his case. That he is just trying to fill pages because his argument was already made in the first few chapters of the post-rant portion of the book. I gave this book an extra star, because even though most of us are already aware of the problem, it does a lot when an insider writes it down. The exposure might bring about some change. Here's hoping, but I'm not holding my breath.
Rating:
Summary: Journalism 101
Review: I am a college student, a journalism major, and I am glad that at last someone is telling the truth about the media. As early as Journalism 101, basic newswriting classes, students are taught to write without bias. It is the main principle of this field. Give the people what is newsworthy, and leave your opinion out of it! Bernard Goldberg is a very well-respected journalist with a lot of courage. He's willing to take heat for a book that will hopefully shift journalism back to the middle. It is amazing to me that most journalists today have simply disregarded what they were hopefully taught in journalism school originally. At least we now have one role model, Bernard Goldberg, who we can look up to. His book is fantastic.
Rating:
Summary: Like shooting fish in a barrel
Review: This book is so dead on accurate it defies description. However, to say this is a work of journalistic expertise would be too high of praise - it is rather merely the stating of the obvious. The book is written well, and flows smoothly in a conversational tone. The examples used, statistics, and quotes from "insiders" validate what all of America realizes anyway - that our so-called "news" has been through a liberal and politically correct spin before it reaches our sets. As is demonstrated by the interviews and quotes, this is obvious to everyone but those doing the spinning. It is sad really because while they do not yet realize it, the Network anchors are on the downward slope anyway. Too much cable, satellite and Internet competition has thankfully reduced the damage these liberal and biased actors can do to the reality they report. I found of particular interest the sections on Dan Rather, the cowardly brown nosers posing as CBS news management, and how the liberal bias of these individuals slants the very way stories are told, and images are aired. The sections on how race issues are covered up, and how statistics are inflated to help promote certain causes like AIDS and the homeless, were also fascinating to see actually put in print and proven. The way that these TV personalities describe and label people they do not agree with, under the guise of neutrality, would be sad if it were not so unethical and lacking in integrity. That Dan Rather would actually feel he is important, and more than just a recognized face, is even more amazing, and a testimony to how incestuous and out-of-touch these dinosaurs are. I recommend the book for anyone who is not on the far left politically, as it will simply validate what you have watched with your own eyes for years. If you are on the far left, be prepared to squirm as the obvious bias in the media is unfolded before you, not from a conservative Republican, but from a liberal Democrat with enough journalistic integrity to call it the way it is.
| 
