Rating: 
Summary: Another Whistleblower Tells all and Suffers Career Death
Review: Goldberg confirms what conservatives have known for decades - that the people who bring you Big News have a Big Bias towards the left side of the political spectrum. By writing an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, expressing his disatifaction with the way CBS covered the News, he committed career suicide. He was no longer considered a Good Team Player. What I found most interesting, however, was Goldberg's comparison of CBS's Imperial Highness, Dan Rather, to the highly thin-skinned, enemies-listing Richard Nixon. It seems that to be "forgiven" by Rather is like being given the kiss of death by a Mafia Godfather. In fact, the portrait of the heir to Walter Cronkite, taken as a whole, makes him seems small and petty. The second thing that I learned was that the movers and shakers at the Networks don't simply pay cynical lip service to the notion of balanced reporting. There is no wink or nod suggesting that they KNOW that what they are producing is biased. The surprise is that they truly believe they ARE unbiased. Can you believe it? Dan Rather really thinks the New York Times is "middle-of-the-road." He's not faking it. How far out of touch with "Real America" do you have to be to think THAT? Perhaps it is this mindset that explains why Harry Smith of "CBS This Morning" could refer to Catherine MacKinnon as a "noted law professor" while Phyllis Schlafly was referred to as a "conservative spokeswoman." I beg you to read anything that MacKinnon has written, then show me how her views are not those of a very radical, left-wing gender feminist. There are more examples. Tom Selleck is always referred to as conservative while Barbra Streisand is merely referred to by name. Rush Limbaugh is always the ultra conservative talk show host, but Rosie O'Donnell, who hosted fund raising events for Hillary Clinton is never referred to as a liberal talk show host. Republican politicians are always labelled as conservative but Democrats are never referred to as liberal. It goes on and on. Did you know that Bill Clinton cured the homeless problem? Well apparently so ... or maybe the homeless situation only makes a good story when Republican Presidents occupy the White House? Coincidence? Goldberg thinks not. The only thing that will force Network Newscasters to change is competition. It started with conservative talk radio. To a certain extent, Fox News has become the alternative source of news to the established Networks. Some say Fox News is more balanced. Some say they are simply conservative. The important thing is that it represents competition for viewers. I stopped watching Rather, Jennings and Brokaw several months ago. I got tired of punishing myself for no good reason. I hated having to yell back at my TV set night after night, regardless of whether I was watching ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN. Now, I can get the same information and talking heads on Fox News, but I don't get enraged while listening. It may not be the perfect solution, but it will do until something better comes along.
Rating: 
Summary: A sad and misguided work
Review: It's too bad that Bernard wants to take sides and pretend that there actually is a fight between the liberal and conservative perspectives shown in corporate media.
Bernard ignores the obvious and avoids stepping on big toes at his mega monopoly of a company called viacom. This work is nothing special. Just another quick fix to the alternative independant media that is popping up all over the place because Bernard thinks that media "Needs to take a side."
Rating: 
Summary: What a breath of fresh air!
Review: I commend Goldberg for writing this book. It confirms my own observations and worst suspicions, while showing up the big media "stars" for the cartoons of journalists they are. The only reason I didn't give it 5 stars was the writing style and lack of documentation: too much repetition and emotion; overuse of italics and exclamation points; no references, footnotes or bibiography to show the dates, times, publications, airings, etc., for his quotes, though no doubt he can back them up. I acknowledge being a staunch conservative but believe Goldberg because he is a journalist first and a liberal second. He's kept his own political persuasions out of his professional work, which is the whole point. Our country is better off for this exposure; The self-serving Dan, Tom and Peter have done us a disservice, damaged news credibility and misled the public. Kudos to Mr. Goldberg's courage!!
Rating:
Summary: Goldberg Strikes Gold
Review: Of course this book is wasted on all of you "critics" who refer readers to Chomsky .. what an idiot he is stirring up corporate paranoia among the uneducated masses and pandering to the fears of the liberals. For a real epiphany, read David Horowitz.
I worked in the news business for 20 years and I can tell you Goldberg is right-on. Has Chomsky ever spent a day in a real working newsroom? I can tell you it doesn't matter who your "parent" company is .. editorial decisions are made on an individual basis by news directors, managing editors, assignment editors, reporters, video editors. I have a few stories myself, like the last general election, when only a handful of us "secret Republicans" quietly cheered Bush's victory and the rest of our newsroom staff was plunged into depression that Gore lost.
Frankly, you'd be shocked and horrified to know just how stories are slapped together. And if you heard what really went on in the editorial meetings every morning and afternoon in the average newsroom, you'd never watch TV news again.
Rating:
Summary: A must if you care about being informed.
Review: I always new there was a bias in the media but never in my wildest dreams did I know how bad it is. If you think Peter, Tom, and Dan are giving it to you straight then your dreaming too. These people sit in seats of massive power, tell only one side of the important issues.Or worse yet, lie and distort the facts. Mr. Goldberg has been in the busies for over 28 years and gives compelling evidence that the main-stream media slants left. If your conservative, this book tells you why and how this is happening. If your liberal, at lest you can get another point of view so you can make a "informed" decision for once. The first decision to be made is find other news sources quick!
Rating:
Summary: Confirmed what I already knew
Review: There was nothing really new here about bias in the media. I can see it almost every night watching the TV network news that this book describes. What makes this book interesting is the examples of bias by specific reporters including Dan Rather and their inabliity to see it. For those of you who don't realize the major media is only feeding us one view of the "truth" it might open your eyes to how the "politically correct" of our country want us to see the world through their eyes and not necessarily the way it truly is.
Rating: 
Summary: Bias is unaviodable
Review: Conservatives will praise this book for validating their opinion they are under attack by the "media". Liberals will condemn it for its view that they control the news. Does anyone actually believe that news can really be objective in 10 second sound bites? Perhaps there is a greater problem with Americans lack of commitment to learning about issues in depth and expecting the media to explain it all for them. News is a business and in a market system you get what you pay for, isn't that the American way? To paraphrase just a little, you get the news you deserve, so stop whining.
Rating:
Summary: I expected more
Review: Partly because the left-tilt of the press is obvious to anyone paying attention, I expected an additional level of insight from Goldberg. I also expected a more sophisticated writing style -- the book frequently reads like it was written for a story on a TV newsmagazine. While the events he does describe are interesting, and surely demonstrate the presence of bias, I expected and wanted more. He devotes considerable attention to a single news story by Engberg about the flat tax, which promted Goldberg to write a Wall Street Journal editorial, which resulted in Dan Rather and others at CBS hating him. Some of this is interesting, but there was too much about this single story and not enough of other examples of bias. His analysis of the media's treatment of AIDS and homelessness is interesting, but not particularly deep, and anyone who has read Fumento's book ("The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS") which is cited by Goldberg -- and appears to fuel his analysis -- knows that there was bias in AIDS reporting from both the left and right. I also found Goldberg's discussion of the media's reluctance to put minorities in their news stories to be somewhat tortured albiet quite interesting. The fact that minorities are excluded from stories out of a fear of decreasing white viewership does not support the notion that the media is left wing, and thus requires Goldberg to claim that they are hypocrites. Ultimately, though, the book is a quick easy read, and well worth the effort required to enjoy the information he does provide.
Rating:
Summary: Bias, A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News.
Review: Finally!! Someone, namely mr. Goldberg, has the courage to put into print what many of us have known for years. Now we have a creditable piece of work that spells out what we've been saying for longer than I care to remember.
Rating:
Summary: This book is the truth and NOT conservative wimpering
Review: I loved this book, however, I'm convinced that many, normally objective readers will dismiss this book as "right-wing" propaganda which it most certainly is NOT. I think the biggest irony is this... Normally CBS and the other networks celebrate any kind of "gotcha" reporting which exposes deep, dark corporate secrets. On any other subject, Goldberg would be praised as a hero instead of a traitor or right-wing convert. The TV networks operate and spin in the biggest glass house of all. They refuse to examine themselves when it comes to their own code of ethics and "objective" journalism. Whatever your political leanings, read this book.
| 
