Rating: 
Summary: Network news insider discovers what we already knew
Review: Bernard Goldberg blows the whistle on network news biased reporting. "Bias" is the first book of its kind written by a network news insider. However, Bernie isn't telling us, who don't brunch at the Four Seasons, anything new. We already knew that the so-called news was written and presented by a bunch of left leaning elitist snobs. I am sure that it is a total shock to Dan Rather, leftist Anchorperson for CBS, that Goldberg's book is a top seller. DanRatherPeterJenningsTomBrokaw doesn't see himself as being biased because all of the people with whom he associates has the same opinion on all issues that he does. It is almost funny to watch CBS, ABC, CNN and CNBC scrambling in the wake of the Fox News meteoric ascension. The networks are reorganizing and replacing clueless insiders with other clueless insiders. They just don't get it! CNN's Isaacson is trying to make CNN "more hip" and giving it an almost MTV flavor. Sorry Isaacson but that is exactly what we don't want.
Rating: 
Summary: It's time for a book like this to be published!
Review: I was amazed by the information in this book - in just a few minutes after picking it up. I know now that political agendas should stay out of media coverage. It's long past time for a changing of the guard at major news divisions. Anchormen Br0kaw, Jenn1ngs and R@ther have their own political agendas has stated in this well documented book. These big media people sit in seats of massive power and tell only one side of issues - their side. Even worse yet, hide, lie or possibly distort the facts when it conflicts with their views. This book is compelling evidence that this is the way the main-stream media operates. I strongly suspected there was a liberal bias in the media but never in my wildest dreams did I know how bad it really was. Goldberg reveals here just how biased the media are - and how they create and manipulate news to help their own agenda.
With their deceptive tears and artificial emotions - they have mastered the art of media manipulated to their favor. No one should know better than Goldberg - he is a liberal himself! A excellent reading but very controversial.
Rating:
Summary: Finally! The Mighty News Media exposed!
Review: I am a college educated professional woman over 40 who has been forced by the news media over the years to go elsewhere if I wanted "balanced reporting". I found myself intrigued by Rush Limbaugh and magazines like the National Review because of their "conservative bias" only so I would hear both sides. The sad part is, they are SUPPOSE to be commentary and call themselves what they are...conservative. I always believed the news needed to be just that...NEWS. Not Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and all their minions view of the world. I found Bernie Goldberg's book to say what I have seen for decades now...the bias is not just in my head! Thank God he is a democrat and can still see the Liberal AND Conservative slants that are out there for what they are.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent content, so-so style
Review: Regenery publishes a lot of good, hard-hitting books. Unfortunately they are largely long on content but short on style and this book is cast in that mold. No need to rush to judgement; some careful rewriting and thoughtful editing would have made this a 5-star book easily. Fascinating, truthful and devastatingly accurate.
Rating:
Summary: *****
Review: This book, aside from stating the obvious about the media's liberal slant, shows how EXTREME the media is in their attitudes. It's like reading about members of a cult! A previous review below mentions the reader's disappointment that Goldberg violated his contract by writing his WSJ op-ed piece without prior permission from CBS. But not mentioned is Goldberg's very reasonable response, when called on this by a superior: "I reminded him that others, including Dan Rather, had written controversial op-ed pieces without getting approval, and nothing ever happened to any of them." What Goldberg says has long needed saying.
Rating: 
Summary: He must be kidding?
Review: It was impossible to finish this book. All I could see is the grinning face of the author selling snake oil. Corporations own the media. Why would they put a LIBERAL slant on anything? Corporations are notoriously CONSERVATIVE! Anything that the media is selling to the public can only foster CONSERVATIVE interests. If a certain piece appears to be liberal look between the lines at the long-term agenda. Like this book, it is to make the public boo freedom and civil liberties while entrusting our rights to the "experts." Nice try Bernard. If you want to know what the media is really doing, read HOW TO SAVE AMERICA AND THE WORLD by Joseph Francione
Rating: 
Summary: A directionless rant.
Review: I know there's liberal bias in the media. At this point, who doesn't? I hoped this book would provide clear, well organized evidence. While Goldberg's work is clearly thoughtful and no doubt insightful, I found his constant sarcasm and rambling style very tiresome. While the book is full of specifics, there is little direction, and Goldberg's tone reduces his thoughtful arguments to directionless rants.
Rating:
Summary: Bias
Review: Simply the best book about TV News written and with all the criticism from the left it must be pointed out that the left can't refute the facts of this book so they attack the author. This book may make the network news irrelevant, if at 42% of viewership, it isn't already.
Rating:
Summary: Gutsy - great specific stories that'll make you roll your ey
Review: This is a great book from the inside telling specific stories
of what has always appeared to me to be "glaring" media bias (and downright nastiness inside the news business). Particularly disturbing was the story of how Connie Chung (one of the few news reporters I've ever really liked) was forced off the news with Dan Rather after she got to be the first one in Oklahoma after the bombing there. Dan Rather was on vacation. But he was so incensed by the fact that she got the jump on him on that story, that her days were numbered. She was shortly thereafter canned, thanks to Dan Rather. Particularly funny is one story, for example, where footage of looting was cut from a broadcast because it showed all the looters to be black. Well, the looting occurred on one of the Virgin Islands where virtually the entire population (including to cops arresting the looters, incidentally) was black! What do you do, NOT run any story about something negative if it happens in a black country? There is also a great amount of detail about how the threat of AIDS to heterosexuals who don't shoot up drugs and who are not hemopheliacs, has been vastly exaggerated, virtually conjured from whole cloth, and how homelessness (when one does research on the number of stories on the issue that have appeared over the years and when and where they appeared), according to the media virtual began the day Reagan was elected, ending the day Clinton was elected, and through some sort of wizardly, is just now suddenly making a reappearance. Another great bit notes how Peter Jennings, during the Clinton impeachment hearings, identified every conservative Senator as he filed into the room as a "conservative" (sometimes with a modifier to suggest the depth of his conservatism) but didn't utter a peep to identify any of the liberal Senators as "liberal". The same thing too, when Judge Bork was a commentator identified as "conservative" but nothing was said about Lawrence Tribe, a very liberal law professor, nothing except that he was a Harvard professor. The negative reviewer misses the point of part of the book where the author was simply pointing out that the media gets away with saying extremely vile things about conservatives (using words such as Nazi, KKK, etc.), using comparisons with a depth of mean-spiritedness and unfairness, that would never be allowed by editors if said about liberals EVEN IN AN OP-Ed piece. The only place you might see it, of course, is on Rush Limbaugh or other talk radio. The author has come up with the theory, which sounds likely to me, that conservative talk radio owes its very birth and continued existence to the fact that the other media, the NY Times and most other papers, and most network t.v. news (not all, but virtually all), have slid so very very far to the left. If they'd been more fair, more balanced, conservative talk radio would not have exploded onto the scene, and Rush Limbaugh would still be flipping burgers somewhere.
Rating:
Summary: The Solution, by "West Point" author Norman Thomas Remick
Review: Very interesting book. But there will always be bias, and on all sides. Those who have a bias will always have a hard time conquering it, maybe not even know their bias is showing through. It's called human nature. Intentional use of bias is what becomes a problem. It can cross the line into being little white lying, cheating, or stealing. What's the solution to intentional and unintentional bias? The existing honor system of the press is a start, but doesn't go far enough. It needs a "toleration clause", like they have at West Point, to be truly self-policing. A cadet (in our case, journalist) will not lie, cheat, or steal --- or TOLERATE those who do. If the toleration of intentional bias or "wrongdoings" would make the tolerating journalists also guilty and subject to some sort of "penalty", the journalistic honor system would become a realistic honor system. The book, "West Point", deals with the philosophy and practicalities of ethics, character, honor system, toleration clause, and why these things are deemed important for men and women at West Point who may influence the sons and daughters of America someday. Can these things be any less important to our Country for men and women in journalism who DO, not may, influence EVERYONE in America, EVERY day?
| 
