Rating: 
Summary: A FABULOUS BOOK, A MUST READ
Review: Bernard Goldberg, a moderate liberal, has written THE book on media bias. As an insider, who is an Emmy Award-winner with a reputation as an outstanding reporter, he is especially qualified to analyze how the media distort the news. He convincingly illustrates how they don't simply report the news; but instead, become advocates for the politically-correct liberal side of the issue. Worse yet, they censor facts that dispute their positions. The following quote from page 24 of his book sums it up:BEGIN QUOTE
Too many news people, especially the ones at worldwide headquarters in New York, where all the big decisions are make, basically talk to other people just like themselves. What the journalist John Podhoretz said about New Yorkers in general is especially true of the New York media elite in particular: they "can easily go through life never meeting anybody who has a thought different from their own." Far-fetched? Just think back to that famous observation by the New Yorker's otherwise brilliant film critic Pauline Kael, who in 1972 couldn't figure out how Richard Nixon had won the presidency. "I can't believe it!" she said. "I don't know a single person who voted for him!" Nixon carried forty-nine states to McGovern's one, for God's sake-and she wasn't kidding! That's one of the biggest problems in big-time journalism: its elites are hopelessly out of touch with everyday Americans. Their friends are liberals, just as they are. They share the same values. Almost all of them think the same way on the big social issues of our time: abortion, gun control, feminism, gay rights, the environment, school prayer. After a while they start to believe that all civilized people think the same way they and their friends do. That's why they don't simply disagree with conservatives. They see them as morally deficient. What reasonable person, they wonder, could possibly be against affirmative action? Maybe some stupid people in the South and Midwest who wear polyester pants are against it. But what could you expect from them, anyway? The sophisticated media elites don't categorize their beliefs as liberal but as simply the correct way to look at things. They think they're middle of the road-raging moderates-while everyone else (the people who live in the "red states" that George W. Bush carried) is on the fringe. It's scary to think that so many important people who bring Americans the news can be so delusional.
END QUOTE I highly recommend this book regardless of your political persuasion. If you have any doubts about the veracity of this book, just remember of all the people who have so viciously attacked Mr. Goldberg, none (not one!) has disputed any facts he has given. Instead they have simply launched into their typical ad hominem attack mode and tried to vilify him by describing him as traitor, disgruntled former employee, vindictive, arrogant, loner, enemy, friendless, etc.; and all of this from people who supposedly want to seek out the truth and encourage whistle-blowers in all other areas of reporting except this one. In closing, I wish there was someway Amazon could require people who submit reviews to have actually read the book. It's obvious from reading some of the leftist reviews of "Bias," this is not the case.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointed
Review: I was disappointed when I finished reading BIAS although I would still recommend it. When I first heard about the book I was excited to read it (planning on waiting until it came out in paperback)and thrilled when I was given it as a Christmas present. I thought it would be a thoughtful, reflective book by a professional journalist about his own industry. Instead, Goldberg spends way too much time personally attacking individuals and sneering at their attitudes and professional judgements. And by extension making himself out to be both victim and saint. It almost ruined the book for me. If I had to read him refer to Rather as "The Dan" one more time I was going to throw up because it just made him seem as petty as he was portraying Rather. Talk about beating a dead horse. Fortunately, the last half of the book got better. This book could have used a better editor to rid of the childish demeanor. It could have used more thought put into it so it didn't seem so much like something written in one fit of pique since some of the serious stuff which should be legitmately examined and seriously debated are just going to be drowned out. It would be very easy the way this book is written for professional journalists to ignore it. It also seems tailor made for conservatives to embrace instead of starting a serious national debate by thoughtful individuals on all sides of the political spectrum. I am by training an academic so I was disappointed that in the book's lack of evidence which I could more independently evaluate on its merits. This is an important issue which needs serious scruntiny and debate so I am very disappointed that this book does not rise to the level of its promise. Even so I am glad I read it. It did remind of a great irony I learned when I was teaching undergraduate Business Ethics at a state university. Two of my students were graduate student journalism majors. I gave an assignment for students to bring in a code of ethics pertaining to their chosen field (like marketing, accounting, finance, etc.). Their codes could be from a corporation or a professional association. My journalism students came to me with a huge problem: no code of ethics for journalism. I was stunned. Turns out one of the reasons they were taking Business Ethics is because they no formal ethical training as undergraduates and none in their graduate program. And they insisted they were unaware of any journalistic professional society with one (I certainly hope that was not true but merely lazy students or if true 12 years ago journalism has developed one). I had them make up a code based on their own experiences both in the classroom and working on papers. It was ironical to me since Business Administration curriculum have spent a great deal of time developing ethics training for future business leaders in part in reaction to all those headlines and TV exposes screaming that business had no ethics. And yet J-schools didn't bother to inculcate journalism students with professional ethics. It certainly explains a lot about the level of journalism in this country and actually explains a lot of the flaws in this book.
Rating: 
Summary: We didn't know(smirk).
Review: Goldberg points out what any remotely observant person has long known:that the media tilts decidedly leftward.It is in the mass media of course,and in academia,where the self-anointed saviours of the human race(good Socialists all)can enlighten us poor ignorant grunts and lead us into Utopia.Goldberg keeps a rather narrow focus and the book sort of bogs down.For a wider view of the Left's "Long March" through American institutions, David Horowitz or Roger Kimball's _Tenured radicals_ will be of help.
Rating:
Summary: Goldberg Stretches an Eassay Into a Book
Review: After watching Dan Rather's amazing wrap-up of the Republican
National Convention last year, I was prepared to like Bias,
and I did, but not as much as I had expected. The book has
two problems which detract somewhat from its impact. Firstly,
it appears to be printed "double spaced" in the way those of
us old enough to have used typewriters will remember from trying
to stretch college papers to the assigned length (I suppose
today's students simply use larger fonts..), and Goldberg tends
to repeat himself. Couple this with several appendices which
add little but pagecount, and several pages of examples of bias
gathered by others, and the reader is forced to assume that
Goldberg had the material for a good essay, and was forced to
pad it to book length to get it published. Secondly, Goldberg hurts his case by letting his obvious rancor
towards Rather color his presentation. Claiming that if CBS
were a prison, then most of the staff would be Rather's ...
is certainly attention getting, but it doesn't present Goldberg
as a calm man with a reasoned argument. Neither does his
tendancy to refer to Rather as "The Dan". One such reference
makes a point, after that it starts to seem petty. PJ O'Rourke
can use tactics like this and make his point while still being
screamingly funny. Unfortunately, Goldberg is no O'Rourke and
he should stick to a straight-forward presentation of his
argument.
Rating:
Summary: Bias - contains some important nuggets of truth
Review: Summary: decent book, very important message, easy reading. This is not a great book from a literary standpoint - it spends too much time on fluff, Goldberg's personal feelings, and bad analogies. I would have preferred more concentration on the "hard data" in the book. However, the basic message contained in bias is very important and needs to be addressed by the "mainstream media". Here are two short examples: on page 123 of the hardcover edition, Goldberg discusses a poll of Washington journalists in 1996 that indicate 89% of them voted for Bill Clinton, compared to 43% of general voters. On page 124, 61% of journalists identified themselves as liberal, and only 9% as conservative. When confronted with facts such as these and many others, only a person willfully being blind can argue that there is no liberal bias in the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NY Times, etc.) Liberal commentators continue to attack Goldberg personally to discredit the message contained in his book, because they cannot rebut it on its merits.
Rating:
Summary: An eye opener
Review: Excellent examples. I never new how bad it was. It is only since I read this book that it become obvious how blatant they really are in their slant of the news.
As Goldberg writes, they don't even know in some cases they are doing it. Everyone thinks they are middle of the road.
But, until enough people read books like this, they will get away with it.
Rating:
Summary: The Good, The Bad and The Biased
Review: I found the book interesting, if not terribly well organized and a bit too hostile. Goldberg should have buried the hatchet with Rather, at least in his own mind, before commensing his expose on media bias. His characterization of Rather, while no doubt accurate, takes up too much valuable space and reader time without really addressing the more important topic of how the media serves as a prism, distorting reality by only showing a few colors. I thought he managed to provide both anecdotal and statistical information sufficient to prove, at least on the issues he addressed, that the media suffers from a serious leftward bias. And I appreciated his argument that the media do not even realize they are presenting the news in this biased fashion because they live such insular lives. Two things that I do not like in any book, let alone a critical work of non-fiction:
1) Using the F-bomb. The F-word should be avoided in non-fiction unless being used in a quote. Goldberg refers to his own thinking a few times and uses the F-bomb, and that just seems unnecessary.
2) Revealing the contents of private conversations. While I realize that this is part of writing about personal experience, when incriminating statements are made in confidence, they should remain there. A member of the press should be more sensitive to this than most others. "An executive said Dan Rather is a jerk" would have sufficed. We did not need to know the name of the executive. This reflects poorly on Goldberg's credibility. Overall, I think this book will prove interesting to those who believe that the media is biased, and I hope that this first-hand account leads to serious consideration and perhaps academic work on the ways in which the media distort the news and the impact this has on public perceptions and decision-making.
Rating:
Summary: This book will change how you watch evening news!
Review: I seldom read exposes because they tend toward spewing bitterness rather than sharing useful information. However, this is not the case with this book. Granted, Mr. Goldberg feels betrayed, but he does a great job of confirming my suspicions and validating my lifelong frustration with so-called U.S. journalism. I observed the bias problem as far back as journalism school. My professors preached objectivity, but didn't model it -- and we didn't dare issue a challenge if we wanted to pass a class. My hats off to this author for risking his pension! Since I'm a Caribbean American (and quite dark), I took particular interest in Mr. Goldberg's chapter on lack of diversity in prime time television. I've noticed the problem and figured it had something to do with advertising, but the revelation in this book horrified me. Refusing to report on minorities just to win Sweeps Month? Calling any person of color an "African American" even if s/he is not? In a desperate effort to become politically correct, the media has become one of the most racist institutions in our society. I've always believed that if prime time news is our sole source of information, then we're misinformed. Too much is left out and what's there is badly twisted. I hope this book helps us take personal responsibility to find truth and run away from those who only care about making money.
Rating:
Summary: A Wake Up Call
Review: Bernard Goldberg details the narrow view of CBS and other network news. He points out that stories aren't purposely slanted, but inherently biased because most journalists are liberal. Goldberg's examples include using the word "conservative" or "controversial" in front of every person whose politics differ from the reporter's. Why not label NOW as a "liberal women's group" instead of assuming they speak for the majority of American women? They don't. They speak for a vocal minority. Goldberg makes an exception for FOX News, pointing out that they are more balanced. The O'Reilly Factor is an example of conservatives and liberals truly debating the issues. The book details far more examples of liberal bias, they will amaze you as you read. Three cheers for Bernard Goldberg! Pass the book around, and tell your friends. You'll never watch the news in the same way again.
Rating:
Summary: Much needed...
Review: For years conservatives have known that news has a mass left-wing agenda behind it. Goldberg finally seems to confirm what people have known all along. He discusses the stories that make the news and those that don't and why. What is surprising is not that the media takes sides regularly, but they literally manufacture headlines and stories with very little support except maybe a conventiently misinterpreted statistic here and there. While the book at times places too much emphasis on Goldberg's own experiences, it does serve to show that the media elite hated Goldberg for his Wall Street Journal articles when he first let the "secret" out about liberal bias, and continues to hate him now for publication of this book. "Bias" is a very readable and important statement about the power that mainstream media wields at the public's expense.
| 
