Rating: 
Summary: Dan would Rather you not read this book
Review: I haven't watched network news in 20 years. This book explains why. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: I am not biased-This is a great book
Review: I was absolutely fascinated by this book. I read it in three days. Goldberg puts out credible facts about the media's "bias" although it technically isn't a bias as Goldberg points out in the book. This book has opened my eyes to what happens within Network News. I'll never watch the news the same way again.
Rating: 
Summary: Key points for a column, not a book
Review: Mr.Goldberg took a leap that many should do, but few have the courage.
From his decades of a professional correspondant and an employee of a worldwide news network (CBS), he has observed and interally challenged inconsistencies of objective reporting. When a fellow correspondant turned a news story into a 'wacky' list of jokes, Goldberg 'broke'. After noting his perception of network liberal bias in his published letter to the editor, his stature within the network was demonized and miminized. This is not fiction, but instead Dan Rather and CBS "eye on the news" reality.
Goldberg's 'book'relates his personal struggle with the fallout of his confrontations, but additionally, lays out an array of national 'news stories', which when subjected to analysis, seem well to demonstrate a very liberal agenda not only at CBS but within the other major news vendors.
His observations are very well documented and insightful, however, the themes are repeated unnecessarily. The reader should "get it" early without the continual drumming.
Excellent and thought provoking writing from an appropriately disgrunted professional. This book will change the way you listen to the news or view promoted national issues.
Rating: 
Summary: This book is a joke
Review: Bernard Goldberg apparently saw the success of Bill O'Reilly's books and realized that populist rhetoric sells books. Hence, in Bias, Goldberg's attempt at slumming, he badmouths New York and Los Angeles at every turn and uses words like "elite" whenever possible. Space prevents a thorough critique of Bias, so I'll focus on some of the labored and unintentionally funny parts of Goldberg's pseudo-populist diatribe.
Although Goldberg's ostensible purpose is to critique bias in mainstream reporting, he spends a large portion of his thin book attacking opinion pieces (which, duh, are supposed to be opinionated). For instance, Goldberg spends an entire page attacking the "media elites" at the Los Angeles Times for publishing an op-ed containing the following opinion: "...whenever I hear [Republican Senate majority leader] Trent Lott speak, I immediately think of nooses decorating trees. Big trees, with black bodies swinging from the business end of the nooses." Goldberg responds: "This is vile. Maybe it went over big with what they call 'the creative community' in Los Angeles, but this is vile hate speech no matter how you cut it." Vile hate speech? What planet is Goldberg living on? Apparently, Goldberg doesn't know about Lott's long-running association with and unqualified endorsement of virulently racist groups such as the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a successor to the old White Citizens Councils (if Goldberg wants to witness authentic "vile hate speech," he should read CCC's newsletter--which featured Lott's column for several years). Goldberg also seems unfamiliar with Lott's deep-rooted nostalgia for the old Confederacy (e.g., Lott gushingly reaffirmed his embrace of the "spirit of [Confederate President] Jefferson Davis" in an interview with the white supremacist magazine, the Southern Partisan). Yuck. If anything indicates bias, it is how the mainstream media largely accepted Lott's laughable excuse-against all evidence-that he had "no firsthand knowledge" of the CCC's racist philosophy. The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) did an excellent analysis of how Lott misled a largely docile mainstream media regarding his white supremacist associations and views.
Bias is full of nitpicking. Goldberg twice informs the reader about the media's alleged unfairness for referring to Rush Limbaugh as a "conservative radio talk show host" but not mentioning talk show host Rosie O'Donnell's political orientation when describing her. I'll take Goldberg's word that O'Donnell shares her liberal opinions with her audience, but on the few dozen times I've seen O'Donnell's show, she devoted the entire time to entertainment topics. Limbaugh, on the other hand, devotes his entire show to right-wing rhetoric. A content analysis of O'Donnell's and Limbaugh's shows would clearly illustrate the speciousness of Goldberg's redundant (and whiny) criticism.
Finally, if Goldberg were sincerely concerned about journalistic integrity, the first thing he would do would be to repudiate Washington Times reporter and fellow Regnery author, Bill Sammon. In his book At Any Cost, Sammon deliberately misrepresented the content of a Washington Post story in order to attack Al Gore's integrity and patriotism. The media watchdog, The Daily Howler, exposed Sammon's duplicity, but few of the liberal "media elite" that Goldberg bemoans have taken notice. If Goldberg can become indignant enough to complain twice in one book about reporters not referring to Rosie O'Donnell as a "liberal talk show host", then he should jump at a chance to denounce Sammon's egregious journalistic misconduct. I'm not holding my breath.
Rating:
Summary: SLAM DUNK ON THE ELITE MEDIA
Review: THIS WORK IS A TERRIFYING AND EYE-OPENING VIEW OF HOW THE MEDIA MANIPULATES THE NEWS WE SEE. AS THE AUTHOR SAYS, WE'VE ALL NOTICED IT, BUT SOMEONE HAD TO SAY THAT THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES. IF I HAD BEEN IN THE AUTHOR'S PLACE, BEING ACCUSED OF "TREASON" BY DAN RATHER AT CBS FOR RAISING THE ISSUE OF A LIBERAL BIAS IN THE NEWS, THE ONE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE ASKED IS, "DO YOU CALL IT TREASON BECAUSE YOU THINK I LIED ABOUT THERE BEING A BIAS, OR BECAUSE THERE IS A BIAS AND YOU'RE ANGRY THAT I BROUGHT IT TO LIGHT?" EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN THE COUNTRY SHOULD READ THIS BOOK, SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. THEN, THEY SHOULD NEVER WATCH THE NETWORK NEWS AGAIN.
Rating:
Summary: Let Me Tell You Why I Enjoyed This Book So Much!
Review: If you are like me, you have noticed that the nightly news broadcasts on the three oldest networks favor politically correct terminology, lofty liberal ideals, and the faces of diversity in front of the cameras. You may also have read the many news reports that a very high percentage of all national correspondents of the major media are Democrats and consider themselves to be liberals. So what can be the benefit of a book that states the obvious? I found myself chewing on that thought, long after reading the book. But I did enjoy it.
My conclusion is that Mr. Goldberg's position as a former CBS correspondent makes the charges more credible. Also, Mr. Goldberg is clearly not making these points because of his political beliefs, but rather due to his interest in responsible journalism. If he was willing to place his career on the line at CBS to make these points, I found that it was important to me that I honor him by reading the book. Next, I found Mr. Goldberg's dry wit absolutely a lot of fun! Where most of us (including me all of the time) groan when we hear a newscaster slam a conservative or put down an opinion the newscaster does agree with, Mr. Goldberg has the ability to imagine what a conservative newscaster might have said that would have aroused maximum liberal wrath. Whether you agree with the examples or not, they are very funny! Finally, Mr. Goldberg tells us that Mr. Dan Rather isn't quite the man he portrays when reading the news at night. Having said all of those nice things, let me comment that I think Mr. Goldberg is a little unfair in his portrayal of the reaction at CBS to his Wall Street Journal op-ed piece. More than half way through the book, you will learn for the first time that Mr. Goldberg had a written contract that prohibited him from writing for any publication without advance permission. It didn't look to me like Mr. Goldberg tried to get that permission, although he did call a few people to warn them the piece was going to appear. Then, Mr. Goldberg reports being surprised that many people at CBS viewed what he did as disloyal. If an organization makes you sign an agreement like that to get paid, they are sending a message that they want you to be a team player. If you don't want to do that, you should go elsewhere. Mr. Goldberg seemed to have been be trying to have his cake and eat it too. Say what needs to be said, be clear and witty if you can, and be sure of the moral ground you are standing on when you do!
Rating:
Summary: Media Exposed
Review: I received this book only three days ago and completed it. It was virtually impossible to put down. I would recommend this book to people of all political persuasions. This book would be one thing if the author was a devout conservative - but the fact is, he isn't!!
Mr. Goldeberg does an excellent job of backing up the facts that uncover what many have been privately thinking for years - that there is a leftward slant to the mainstream media. The next time I hear msrs. Rather, Jennings or Brokaw tell me that there is no such thing as a bias in the news media, I think I am going to toss my cookies. Then again, I probably won't because I don't watch them anyway (as their dwindling ratings will attest to). A must read!!
Rating:
Summary: Finally!
Review: Finally, a self-proclaimed, liberal, news media veteran has admitted what most reasonable people have known for a generation - that the mainstream media is slanted to the left and therefore out of touch with mainstream America. Hopefully, "Bias" will do for journalism what Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" did for the meat-packing industry.
Rating: 
Summary: good for a media insider or media professional
Review: The first fifty pages are all about office dymanics at CBS, which really did not interest me. The second half of the book is good as the author tackles media bias in homelessness, AIDS, and a variety of other social issues. This book was REALLY hyped by the media, and I think it would be really cool someone in the profession, so I can understand their exacitment. But for a soldier, engineer, teacher or something else the first part just wasn't that interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Accurate but bitter..............
Review: Mr. Goldberg is right, of course. Network news does have a very obvious liberal bias, however, this book was full of bitterness over the shunning he received after his WSJ column. It was almost as though Mr. Goldberg thought that after reading his column Dan the Man would have a personal epiphany, repent of his slanted reporting, change his ways and then thank Bernie for helping him see the light. Since humility is not a character trait that most people care to cultivate, is it reasonable to expect humility and self-examination from a "media star"? When Mr. Goldberg published his column in WSJ, he should have forseen the response from his colleagues and resigned himself to his fate. Had he done that he could have spent more time in his book documenting liberal bias and less time fuming about the past.
| 
