Rating: 
Summary: The irony! The negative reviews are, in my view, biased.
Review: I am a Democrat and host a show on the most liberal station (an NPR affiliate) in the nation's most liberal market: San Francisco. I also write a column in one of the nation's most liberal major newspapers, the San Francisco Chronicle. I have to say that the book Bias has it exactly right. There really is a liberal bias in the media and the author--in a much more measured way than he could have--documents it. It is the Amazon reviewers that seem to be very biased. For example, one reader's comments about a lack of citations is beside the point. This is a report of an insider's experiences at CBS News, not an academic tome. I strongly suspect that if the book's conclusion was that the media had a CONSERVATIVE bias, the reader wouldn't have raised the concern. Frankly, if I had written the book, I would have been more strident. For example, there is great pressure to NOT deal honestly with racial issues such as affirmative action. We feel real pressure to be unabashedly in favor of affirmative action despite solid arguments that, in practice, it is reverse discrimination: Blacks are routinely hired and promoted that never would have been had they been Asian or White. The book Bias, I believe, is absolute must reading for anyone who thinks he or she is getting an even-handed presentation of the news in the major media--print or broadcast.
Rating: 
Summary: Fun light reading, but not very compelling
Review: I kept hearing about this book, about how it exposes the liberal media, about how credible and acurate it was, and about how compelling a case it made. I was expecting to see references of many news stories compared with others to demonstrate the bias. I expected an objective analysis, given the idea that Goldberg himself is supposed to be a "liberal". Then I read it. Needless to say, I was disapointed. First off, it only focuses on CBS news and, much less prominantly, the other two major networks. The bias he talks about can sometimes be seen as liberal, and other times, he makes the case that it is something else, racist for example. He makes a very strong case about the racist part, which is probably the most documented arguement he has, though there is no documentation. (He has a few statistics where he listed the sources) How the idea of having white people on the news instead of blacks is seen as a "liberal" bias is beyond me. The book is really a memoir about the reactions he recieved to an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal. In the first chapter, he talks about how people will call him bitter and resentful, then procedes to be bitter and resentful. He focuses mostly on Dan Rather, reffering to him throughout the book as "The Dan" to compare him to a mafia boss, quoting him without any contextual reference, and talking about "what Dan says vs. what Dan means", assuming that the reader will just take his word for it. Some of the things he insists are true, and even obvious to anyone who doesn't share in the media's "liberal" bias, may or may not be true, but he doesn't offer any comparisons. Instead, he says "This is what they did to the conservative side. Could you imagine what would happen if they did that to the liberal side?". We are to assume, I guess, that it would raise hell, but no comparisons are made, even though there is plenty of "conservative" media around to pick and chose from, who have probably said worse about liberals. By the way, he doesn't mention a word about any other possible filter of the mainstream media other than the reporters themselves. To him, advertisers, corporate ownership, and nationalism don't exist. It's only the liberalism that causes the bias, even the racial bias. In a nutshell, the book is light reading and pure rhetoric. There is a point in there somewhere. The media DOES slant a little, and part of that slant is based on the liberal ideologies of many of the reporters, but the bias itself has more to do with the world view of the reporters, which, to many, might seam liberal, but in reality is not so easily defined.
Rating:
Summary: American Media
Review: Bias by Bernard Goldberg is an excellent book. Goldberg's book thoroughly documents information that reveals how the media can and has been proven to exhibit bias in its execution of the news. This book tells the truth and exposes the facts about the media and its liberal bias. Bernard Goldberg has gained a national voice for saying what everyone else would not say, but could see. He explains how the problem of homelessness was deliberately exaggerated by the media and ultimately blamed on Republican tax cuts, while the real story behind homelessness was purposefully kept off camera for fear of divulging to the American people the real and actual circumstances behind homelessness.
The book has also provided massive information in spite of some liberal statements. In addition, this book confirms everything I've observed about the American media and its liberal bias views on several topics such as: race, relations, homelessness, and terrorism. Furthermore, Goldberg's book expresses many liberal statements but despite all of the open-minded statements that are expressed, this book reports the raw truth about how the media distorts and negatively impacts images into the psyche of the American public.
Rating:
Summary: Bias still strong at CBS
Review: Goldberg has done this country a great favor.
I first reviewed this book on the 14th of December 2001.
I have spent a year and a half viewing the CBS news looking for the kinds of slights that Goldberg described. Has it had an effect? Yes perhaps, but of late I have begun to see the national news media (ex-Fox) begin to slip back into familiar habits. The coverage of Iraq is a great case in point. The continually paint Iraq as another Vietnam. Of course they forget the minor detail that this war was fought to win and the conventional Iraqi forces were defeated. The brave troops are never interviewed, but the lone angry soldier is given plenty of air (he purports to speak for all of his squad). I saw this last night in the Byron Pitts story. It makes me angry when I witness this kind of slander by the left. One more chance to get in a dig at the right without balance could not be passed up. Read and Reread this book to prevent the left for deciding on your behalf what is "best" for you to know and start watching Fox from time to time to add some balance to what you take in!
Many people have already abandoned the network news for other outlets, look for this to continue until they shape up.
Rating:
Summary: Actually makes a case for his opponents' points of view.
Review: The most convincing part of this book is the section in which Goldberg describes how the corporate media bosses influence how the news is presented, because they primarily care about the financial success of the news shows (i.e., ratings and advertisement). What Goldberg does not do is to establish that these corporations have a liberal bias. How many big corporations do you know that are run by people with a liberal bias, or a motivation of any kind stronger than the bottom line? Do you really believe that even "liberal" news anchors are in a position to seriously challenge the wishes of the owners of the businesses they work for? As other reviewers have noted, there are no footnotes and very few checkable references in this book, and it is in large part a personal diatribe against Dan Rather, who according to Goldberg had something to do with his becoming persona non grata at CBS after he wrote a critical op-ed in the WSJ. I have no idea whether or not Rather would be a good person to work for, but whether or not he is, that doesn't have much to do with whether there is a pervasive bias of any kind in the media. I would also add that Goldberg's presentation is really weak on logic. He is so clearly motivated by rage and emotion that he fails to make a convincing case for many of his arguments, and fails to see and correct for his own all too frequent biases. That is exactly the accusation he makes against the "liberal" media he's in such a lather about. For a much better documented, and thought provoking, view of this from an unabashedly liberal point of view, read Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?" Far from perfect, but contains much more food for thought, and is *much* better documented.
Rating:
Summary: Inside the world of the elite media...
Review: One of the most telling books of the last decade, Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" answers one of the most important questions of the last several decades: Does the mainstream media harbor a liberal bias? Goldberg's answer is yes. Is that liberal bias a well-planned conspiracy? Absolutely not. As a thirty-year veteran of CBS news and the recipient of multiple accolades in his field, Bernard Goldberg is certainly in a position to know. The newsman's thesis is simple: members of the mainstream media congregate together, they attend the same parties, they stick to the same business circles. They also tend to harbor a liberal political view, and since differing viewpoints rarely enter into their social circles, when members of the media are confronted with a conservative viewpoint it seems far-right radical and off-the-wall. Goldberg's position makes perfect sense, and he backs up his claims with a number of personal anecdotes, behind-the-scenes stories, and personal research. Goldberg exposes the method by which the mainstream media skews public perception. An example he uses is a CBS report by Eric Engberg on February 8, 1996. Engberg hosted a segment on the evening news titled "Reality Check" with presidential candidate Steve Forbes as its subject. The reporter began his segment, "Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir, good for everything that ails us." Scheme? Elixir? Goldberg goes on to cite the remainder of the report, "Then Engberg interviewed three different tax experts. Every single one of them opposed the flat tax. Every single one!" He explains that Milton Friedman and Merton Miller, both Nobel Prize winners in economics liked Forbes' flat tax idea, but neither was mentioned in the report. And Goldberg explains that if Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton had come up with a similar flat tax idea, there is NO chance it would have been aired with the same slant and contemptuous tone. If you haven't believed the claims that the mainstream television networks harbor a liberal bias, or if you've never even heard the accusation, then you should definitely read Bernard Goldberg's eye-opening expose "Bias". It will change the way you look at the evening news! Britt Gillette
Author of "The Dittohead Guide To Adult Beverages"
Rating: 
Summary: Racy addition to growing literature
Review: This is clearly a book written for a general audience and approachability is what the author was most aiming at and achieves. Anyone looking for deep scholarly work isn't going to find it here. The points he makes are hardly startling in itself -- the tendency to one-sided use of language, the uneven selection of stories and experts reflecting an insular network news culture. Critical commentary on the public broadcasters throughout Anglo-America (BBC, CBC, ABC, PBS) and on much of the quality press makes the same points again and again (many bloggers love picking up examples). The recent New York Times scandals are another manifestation of this culture. What is unusual is that the author is a former senior journalist and concentrates on the commercial networks, connecting the media culture with the dollar imperative. Goldberg's suggestion that the networks are losing audience precisely because of distance from their audience has plausibility -- given the rise of talk radio (the most audience-interactive broadcast media) and Foxnews. It's an easy read with some striking examples saying things others have said but are not usually (now former) network journalists. That saying what 72 per cent of Republicans and 47 per cent of Democrats believe (that the network news is more liberal than them) should cause such hysteria in media circles is perhaps the most striking thing of all.
Rating:
Summary: If you're objective, you'll realize the media isn't.
Review: Bernie Goldberg describes various incidents of liberal bias in the media. He's NOT a right-wing nut out to grind an axe. In fact, it's difficult to discern his politics from this book (that, incidentally is how ALL journalists should write!). I strongly suggest every news junkie read this book.
Rating:
Summary: He Almost Convinced Me ...
Review: Goldberg's argument that the media share a liberal bias is predicated on the assumption that said bias is not deliberate or conspiratorial, but rather the inevitable result when the people who write and edit the news all come from the same socioeconomic background; attend the same schools, churches and synogogues; vote the same way, etc. He is championing the need for true diversity - not diversity of the superficial variety (e.g., skin color, gender), but diversity of thought and opinion in the newsrooms of America. He makes a compelling case that reporters and editors should stick to the facts on the news pages and leave advocacy journalism to the op-ed pages. Journalists, he says, must be more vigilant in ensuring that personal beliefs and political correctness do not cause them to slant their reporting in favor of or against a particular cause. Sounds reasonable, but in the end Goldberg shoots himself in the foot by claiming there is an exception to the aforementioned rule, and that exception is Israel. Journalists, he says, must maintain an advocacy role at all times when writing about Israel and resist the temptation to suggest a moral equivalency in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East (a bizarre stance, given the fact that many people feel the American media are already unabashedly pro-Israel). In other words, he's asking journalists to set aside their own prejudices in order to more fully support his. That's not my idea of objectivity. In fact, I believe it's because of such self-centered "logic" that American newsrooms are as disreputable as they are. The only cause that journalists should be supporting is the quest for truth, wherever it may be.
Rating:
Summary: "CBS News and I hate each other" would be a better title
Review: I found this book to be interesting, but Goldberg did not really expose anything to me. The book spent more time about how he had a falling out with Dan Rather, which really doesn't surprise me one bit in the slightest. I'm sure that Rather did everything that Goldberg alledged, but frankly, anybody in a position of power, be it a news organization or any large corporation is not going to take well to someone under them writing such a scathingly critical op-ed. But this book spends more time on that feud then it does trying to prove its point. So in the end, I came out knowing that Peter Jennings is a liberal and the conservatives started watching Fox News instead; which isn't really that different than what I've always known.
| 
