Rating: 
Summary: Honest, smart, blunt
Review: This book is the bomb. I would never have expected a liberal to write it. But thank God he did. In this inimitable expose, Bernard Goldberg lays the truth out on a platter. The media news networks are biased, terribly biased, towards the left. And Goldberg proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. He acknowledges that many times, the leftist journalists and media outlets may not be aware of this bias or may not do it intentionally, but none of this can argue away the fact that the bias is real--terribly real.This is the kind of book you can't put down. The way Goldberg was treated after his Wall Street Journal editorial broke, is absolutely reprehensible but, so testifies Goldberg, is an accurate example of how leftist bias works in practice. Always keep in mind throughout the book that Goldberg is himself a liberal. But he is fair and honest enough and has the guts to say just how things are. And that makes the news reporters, anchors, and journalists--who don't think twice about ruining other people's names and careers--furious, because for once, THEY are being exposed and THEIR actions are being scrutinized. The book is full of great one-liners and sad proof of how the news we are fed are filtered through liberal bias, again either intentionally or not intentionally. Goldberg proves that the facts can sometimes look quite different from what we see on TV. Some great examples of his are the AIDS-homosexuality connection and Forbes' "flat tax" proposal in 1996... Another quite sad but important section in "Bias" is the chapter on "liberal hate speech." Goldberg shows how liberals can get away with anything they wish to say, basically, no matter how offensive and rude. For instance, he quotes Julianne Malveaux as saying on PBS that she hoped Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would die an early death. That was in 1994. Today, in 2001, she is still featured in newspaper columns and on TV, no one obviously caring about the reprehensible statement she made. Can we picture a Bill O'Reilly saying the same thing about, say, Jesse Jackson? It would be the end of O'Reilly's career, and the ACLU and who not would be suing the heck out of him. Is this fair? No. It's bias. Liberal bias. And that's what Goldberg, a liberal himself, has come to disclose. There is much, much more excellent stuff in this book, and whether you're liberal or conservative, you owe it to yourself, to your intellectual honesty, to read it and ponder the facts presented therein. ...
Rating:
Summary: I have seen the light!
Review: I was a dupe, and didn't know it, until I read Bernard Goldberg's excellent book. What a fool I have been to be taken in by Tom, Dan, and Peter (throw in CNN,also). I started watching Fox news to see what he was writing about. It is as though an awakening has taken place. I now watch Bill, Sean, and Allen, et. al, on Fox. I have always liked the exchange of ideas with other people, then I make up my mind. I was a sap for listening to the slanted presentations on ABC, CBS, and NBC for so long. A million thanks to Mr. Goldberg for opening my eyes. I am sure others will benefit from his efforts as much as I have.
Rating: 
Summary: The truth will out!
Review: I bought this book last night at a major national chain bookstore. They didn't have it displayed; I had to ask
at the Information desk and the clerk pulled it from a shelf under the counter; sort of felt like I was asking for a copy of Hustler. Anyway, I've read 170 of its 214 pages so far. It's a good expose of the broadcast news business, although he does come off a bit strident in spots. He describes a conversation he had with Dan Rather warning him (Rather) that he had written the 1996 WSJ piece. Rather responds by reminding him that he signed up for two tours with the Marines. Goldberg says that was irrelevant and wonders what Rather thought. I say Goldberg is being a bit disingenuous when he refuses to face the fact that the Right immediately labels as a traitor anyone who has liberal views. It's repeated over and over day in and day out on talk radio. With that qualification, overall Goldberg's book is good and a welcome breath of fresh air in exposing the inherent liberal bias of the broadcast media. Most of us already knew it, but it's good to have confirmation from a true "insider."
Rating:
Summary: Take it from someone who's been there!
Review: I've had my own horrible experiences with the media. My family was involved in a very public murder trial and the media went so far as to control the outcome! This book sheds MUCH NEEDED light on the media's twisted way of thinking. This book is a must-read. Now, if only the press would mend their ways....
Rating: 
Summary: Tell us something we didnt already know
Review: Mr Goldberg voted liberal his entire life and yet he turned to every Republican talk show to push his book against liberals. In my opinion Goldberg is a traitor to his liberal members and a traitor to his country. The question is...Why did the Republican talk shows all give him a chance to push his book. Thats like giving Benedict Arnold a chance to sell his book to the English on American TV. Utter disgrace! How he can manuever his face in the mirror, let alone on TV, baffles the mind.
Rating:
Summary: Goldberg Nails it
Review: In Bias, Bernard Goldberg states what conservatives have know for years: The media are undeniably liberal. But, beyond making general philosophical complaints, Goldberg names names and reports specific altercations from his career. Even more interesting, is that fact that Goldberg is a liberal. But he is truly a liberal of conscience, and a man who spoke up to cure what is ailing mainstream journalism. This is must-read reading.
Rating:
Summary: Bias by Goldberg
Review: Although I agree with the concept the factual matter in the book could have been achieved in one chapter. It is repetitive and self serving. A complete waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent reporting makes liberals squirm
Review: Goldberg has done a superb job of exposing Big Three network (and newspaper) media hypocrisy in a fashion that would make Bill O'Reilly jealous. And any reader can see how such a book gives all the liberals (who also consider themselves to be "middle of the road") fits. And the cold, hard facts on the political views and agendas of reporters are simply ignored by the anchors. And the anchors are protected from any tough questioning of their own motives and practices. Instead, the anchors use invective against Goldberg and uncriticized pallatives to defend their credentials. Dan Rather doesn't get a tough question from Larry King's interview. And Rather wouldn't dare field questions from Tim Russert. Goldberg, no conservative himself, skewers Dan Rather, who has taken on the paranoid, thin-skinned characteristics of the very man who made Rather famous -- Richard Nixon. Goldberg shows the blatant yet obviously overlooked bias in reporting on subjects such as homelessness, AIDS, Ronald Reagan, discrimination, and feminists. He presents the evidence in a clear, compelling fashion. Lots of quotes and notes from the elite and their critics. Good secondary research. Bright, sharp examples and anecdotes. Goldberg's biggest problem is that he is seen as a traitor and not a whistleblower. And that's ABC's, CBS's and NBC's biggest problem as well. Had the Big Three listened, they might not be looking at their dramatic decline in viewership for the evening news, from 75% of home to 43% of homes in the last twenty or so years. This book is certain to stick in the throats of Dan Rather, CBS execs, and any person who ever voted for Bill Clinton.
Rating:
Summary: Spiro Agnew Redux
Review: Remember Vice-President Spiro Agnew's attacks on the media in general and The Washington Post in particular during the Watergate years? His vitriolic attack was based on the premise that the media was elitist and consisted of journalists who had attended Ivy League colleges and now allegedly dined together, traveled in the same social circles and were in a cabal against the Nixon Administration and conservatives. According to Mr. Agnew, journliasts had a liberal bias and were out of touch with the so-called "Silent Majority". This is the same premise as Mr. Goldberg. There is nothing new or different about his premise and conclusions. Absolutely nothing! Mr. Goldberg's anger also is reminiscent of Mr. Agnew's personal venom against individual publishers like Katherine Graham, reporters like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and televsion correspondents like Walter Cronkite. Worse, perhaps, is that Mr. Goldberg attacks CBS News people who treated him kindly, even protected him, whereas Mr. Agnew simply went after people he did not know who were reporting the truth which was threatening to him and the Nixon Administration. Mr.Agnew had great popularity when he made his attacks that there was media bias. It is small wonder that Mr. Goldberg's book is having a similar success. People like them always sell well for a while.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but nothing new
Review: I believe Mr. Goldberg resorts to finger-pointing and name calling a bit too much. However, as one who once "bucked" a narrow-minded and eliteist establishment, I do understand his feelings and tendancies. The main points I got from the book, are: 1. The "costal eliteists" are actually out of touch with people in the remainder of the country, most of whom could care less that they were educated in a (ultra liberal)Ivy league instution, or that they've appointed themselves to a higher higher perch in the pecking order. Frankly, the one's on the East coast, especially look stupid, naive, and tend to be quasi-obnoxious. 2. The idea that virtually everybody in the country knows Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw are staunchly liberal, except "The Dan," Jennings and Brokaw themselves. There is nobody so blind as he that will not see. The fact is that most of the country deeply mistrusts the eliteist network news. I, a registered Independent, gave up on them years ago, along with Geraldo, CNN, Charles Grodin and others. The popularity of FOX news and this book, for example, attest to the overwhealming magnitude of this feeling throughout the country. Rather for example, is a bigoted, narrow minded and ultra stubborn old man who should have retired years ago.
| 
