Rating: 
Summary: Read this book before you turn on the evening news
Review: This book will stun you, amaze you, and get your blood boiling. Every citizen should read it before watching the news. The style of writing is easy to follow, and Mr. Goldberg supports his arguments with facts. We all know these facts, and he supports them solidly. Thank you, Mr. Goldberg! We needed your book!
Rating: 
Summary: What about FOX News!
Review: Surely FOX News more than redresses the balance?
Rating: 
Summary: Poorly put together book
Review: It has been suggested here that liberals are rating this book one star while consevatives are picking five stars. Let me be someone who runs against this grain. I read several reviews of this book before buying it and was given the distinct impression that there was something of substance to this book. What I found were a series of anecdotes that were all available in the reviews here or on other web sites. I found a book with fewer pages than would be expected for the price. I found a book that repeated the same stories over and over again. I counted 3 summaries to the central story (one in the Intro, one in Chapter 1, and one in Chapter 15) and then, the full article in Appendix I, regarding the author's op-ed column in The Washington Post. Incidently if you read the WP column, you have it all. There is definitely no need to buy this book, but run to your local library and read it!Now that said, on the subject of liberal bias in the news, Goldberg is right on the money and it is obvious to anyone with any intelligence who trys to analyse the news instead of simply wolfing it down. All three major networks appear to have clowns (oops, I meant clones, sorry!) reading the nightly newscast. There is no difference in the way it is fed to us on either CBS, ABC or NBC as sugar-coated Pablum -- you either like to watch or listen to any Tom, Dan, or Peter. The news media is interested in only one thing - ratings. So it choses how it reports controversy in ways that will appeal to the mainstream of society. AIDS becomes a heterosexual illness; women who chose to be homemakers are viewed as throwbacks; the homeless are made out to be average people; stories about people like Tonya Harding, O.J. Simpson, Monica Lewinski, Joey Buttafuoco, Elian Gonzalez, Lorena Bobbit, Jon-Benet Ramsey, Gary Condit, etc. are played out ad-infinitum; chain-gangs in Alabama are shown to be populated mainly with whites; stories on looters in the Virgin Islands are suppressed or doctored up because they were all black. But Goldberg also uses some very poor sampling to claim bias against blacks in critical periods like the sweeps month in May 2000. He reports the percentage of main characters in each story that were black on 20/20, 48Hours, and Dateline as being 8, 0 and 0 percent respectively. He dismisses 60 minutes stats of 60% as "dancing to a different drummer". Then he goes on to quote data for the following month gathered by Brill's Content which showed 20, 10, 5 and 13 percent, again respectively to the above-named shows. If you average all these figures, it comes out to 10.6% (10 in May and 11 in June) which compares pretty well to the 13 percent figure defining the percentage of the entire population that is black. The inference in the piece was that May had much lower stats than did June which Goldberg used to claim bias against portraying blacks on TV when it counted. Not true, Mr. Goldberg, not true - who's bias is showing here? Goldberg takes great pains to explain that he is a liberal Democrat and is simply interested in fairness in reporting. He appears to have had a "Bee in his Bonnet" about this issue since 1993 and has an obvious personality conflict with Dan Rather who he disparingly refers to as The Dan as opposed to The Don. One chapter in which Goldberg raises an important issue is entitled "The Most Important Story You Never Saw On TV". He is referring here to sociological studies being done on the current children of America and how intelligent or well-rounded or happy they might be. He quotes studies suggesting that children brought up as "latch-key" children or as "Day Care Graduates" are less well-adjusted because many women are "disinclined to make caring for their children their primary occupation". He goes on to show other examples of poor up-bringing such as the percentage of 15 year old girls who are having sex. (up from 5% in 1970 to 33% today). He claims that stories attacking the way modern families are raising their kids are being deliberately suppressed. Well, I have to agree with Goldberg on this one -- we need to examine ways to restore some sanity to our families and children. The extreme outcomes of these problem are tragedies such as occurred at Columbine High and more recently, in San Diego. The loosening of our moral codes and the exercise of school discipline has led to tremendous problems for our teachers and children to have to deal with in an environment that does not provide a foundation in their lives -- unless they happen to be "church-goers". So in the end what do I recommend: well, I think everyone needs to read this book -- it is an insider's exposé on what our networks are up to. We once had respect for our newscasters - Walter Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Huntley and Brinkley - all were straight-shooters who reported the facts without obvious bias. As John Chancellor said after 12 years as an NBC anchor, "Television reporting is no longer journalism, it is electronics, with advances in communication technology that is pushing reporters to cover stories for which they have no experience". So borrow this book, don't buy it. ... .
Rating: 
Summary: Book Confirms Media Criticism
Review: In Bias, Bernard Goldberg, ex-CBS News reporter confirms the feelings held by millions of news watchers: that news stories slant to the Left and give conservative ideas short shrift. The bias comes from reporters' cultural isolasion and elitism. It also comes from a strange perception of the world. Dan Rather thinks the NY Times editorial page is "middle of the road." After reading Goldberg's story, I see little hope of the media reforming itself. The institituion cannot handle criticism. The biggest weakness with the book is Goldberg's angry tone. He was unjustly pushed aside at CBS News over a Wall Street Journal op-ed, but the bitterness gets tiring.
Rating:
Summary: So, What Else is New?
Review: Goldberg writes this expose' as if it is big news to everyone. I think the media left-leaning bias has long been known, not just by conservatives (~75% of all America?), but by the Left as well. Of course they go to great pains to hide this fact, since most Americans would dismiss them immediately, otherwise, and tune them out. To anyone capable of a little critical thought, however, it's still obvious. People have been complaining bitterly about the liberal media ever since I can remember, about 50 years now. What puzzles me is why it has it taken so long to get a balanced news network like Fox established.
Rating:
Summary: Pure Bias
Review: It took Mr. Goldberg THREE DECADES to decide that there is "liberal bias" in the news media? One wonders what he was doing in those 30+ years. Probably enjoying all the perks and benefits of being part of a successful new organization. Now he decides it is time to "expose" CBS and the other mainstream news organizations (of course, we are also talking about NBC, ABC and every conservative cry-baby's favorite whipping boy, CNN). So, he writes this book. And what do we have? Anecdotal evidence, hearsay, opinionated viewpoints but very little REAL evidence of so-called "liberal" bias. One wishes for better documentation (footnotes, source references, etc.). Instead, we get Mr. Goldberg shilling for FOX News (you know, "fair and balanced: YOU decide"). By now, it should be evident to anyone that ALL news is biased, no matter that it may be "left", "right" or "in-between" (the vaunted "center"). Any organization that relies on sponsors to pay for advertisement on their programs is automatically biased. That should be self-evident but it is something that seems to slip by every conservative complainer. I would still watch Dan or Peter or Wolf, etc. etc. any day over Sean, Jim, and the other "shouters". There is a big difference between reporting news no matter what the slant and just sitting there in front of the television and shouting that you are "fair and balanced: YOU decide". Even a child knows, if you got to tell me over and over that you are fair and balanced, then obviously you are not. It becomes an advertising slogan to sell a show, to get more money, to generate more profits and higher ratings, and the news gets lost in shouting matches, lights and whistles and other gimmicks.
This book is poorly written, as biased as they come, and lacks any REAL evidence of leftist bias. The author can't even define what "left" is, let alone "expose" the bias he perceives that exists. Don't waste your money on this one. Believe me, television news of ALL persuasions needs an expose.
Unfortunately and once again, this book isn't the one to do it.
Rating:
Summary: Bernie's Right View on Bias
Review: Bernie Goldberg lays it all out on the table in his expose of the Liberal lap dog media. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has known for years about the left leaners in the "Media" and here is just another bit of proof. Bernie details the grief and threats made against him by CBS execs but also the support he got from plain Americans.
More grist for the mill a wonderful read.
G in Chicago
Rating:
Summary: None Dare Call It Liberalism
Review: OK, we all know that the media is liberally biased. But every once in a while it's good to see someone confirm that fact, particularly if he is a member of the media himself, and a liberal to boot. Bernard Goldberg was a reporter for years at CBS when, in 1996, he wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal telling everyone that the media was liberally biased. Although we all knew that, Goldberg got the libs at CBS, particularly the sainted Dan Rather, rather upset. BIAS doesn't start off too well. Mr. Goldberg is upset at "The Dan" (as he calls him) and apparently wants to settle some scores. His unfortunate comparisons of certain media big wigs to the mob aren't particularly helpful, but the book improves as it goes along. Goldberg discusses the liberal slant that the media presents many issues from, including homelessness, AIDS, day care, and "diversity." He provides the results of his research and also interesting anecdotal evidence from his own experience in reporting these stories that show just how liberal the media is. As Goldberg says, much of the bias in the media isn't deliberate. Just about everyone in the media is left of center, so stories are reported in such a way that makes the leftist view "normal" and the conservative view "controversial." But on some issues, such as reporting on day care and racial matters, the bias is so overwhelming that it must be a deliberate choice by reporters. For example, the media elites are particularly close to the feminists and certainly aren't going to discuss the dark side of parents shipping their children off to day care. In addition to some of the gratuitous personal attacks, my other complaints about the book are the lack of footnotes and the at-times "gung ho" writing style.
Rating:
Summary: A must reread!
Review: After reading Mr. Goldberg's book, I read the readers' reviews. I have also done some checking as to the CBS reactions to it. I am not surprised at the CBS reaction. The press is willing to take anyone to task but the policing of itself. The companion book to Bias is Tammy Bruce's THE NEW THOUGHT POLICE. The two together accurately give the methodology of how the media frames the issues by quelching dissent and ignoring their failures. One reader claims that the news is not biased and cites the fact that there are so many opinion programs on radio (Limbaugh and Oliver North for example) as proof that the news is not biased. Still others take FOX News on for being even handed in presenting both sides to the story in the news. Of course, Bill O'Reilly is castigated as a conservative by most for his hard hitting spin zone. O'Reilly's attack on Governor Pataki for not acting quickly on oversight of post September 11 charities is overlooked. The core issue that caused Goldberg to write his original column involved the the obvious biased conduct toward a presidential candidate and his platform for a flat tax. I have seen no review that claims Mr. Goldberg was incorrect in stating that the story was blatantly biased. Read BIAS and Burce's THE NEW THOUGHT POLICE.
Rating:
Summary: Rush was right
Review: Bernard Goldberg came to the same conclusion, after 28 years working for CBS, that most of us had already arrived at. CBS, as well as the majority of the other national news organizations, is biased to a particular value system. Mr. Goldberg has been astonished that no leading members of the liberal news set have come forward to defend him. This should not have have been a surprise. He should be grateful if they do not do to him what they did to Linda Tripp. What he needs to understand is that he can never be forgiven because he has exposed unethical behavior amongst those who think they are above ethical reproach. The national news organizations see themselves as moral crusaders where the means justifies the ends. He has shown by specific example that too often these news organizations are propaganda machines for particular political causes and they go about creating the BIG LIE to achieve specific political ends. Mr. Goldberg stops short of suggesting that the news outlets are nothing more than the propaganda wing of the left side of the Demcratic Party. Mr. Goldberg would be well advised to read Rush Limbaugh's book, "The Way Things Ought To Be." If he did, he would see that Rush got there first and got it right. It is why Rush is so dear to so many of us in flyover country. We knew it too and were frequently disgusted and frustrated by the liberal left takeover of the national news media in the U. S.
| 
