Rating: 
Summary: A mixed bag
Review: As you will see from other reviews, your opinion of the content of the book is likely to be strongly influenced by your own bias... whatever you call it. I am in favor of a fair treatment of the facts and in this area Goldberg's approach is pleasing. He makes a strong case that the bias in the newsroom is overwealmingly, and unknowingly, leftist. And this bias extends to areas where it ought not. He convinces me further that such a situation, whether pro-left or pro-right, is a disservice to us all. I suspect that was his point in writing the book, not that he deals with it at any length. We deserve better of our media than a process which is often inaccurate and unfair. In this he includes primarily four things: The dominance of a very few, largely unaccountable, individuals in determining what the news is; selective reporting of the facts; design of reporting to induce the viewer to draw improper conclusions; and a confounding of facts and opinion so as to leave the viewer unable to distinguish between the two. But the book is not organized in that way. The book is neither an expose nor a detailed work of research. It is more of a memoir or personal statement. So it lacks depth where it often seems, to me, to need it most. In his defense, I suspect that Goldberg has not dug deeply so that the book will be accessable (read not boring). For example we get glimpses of the editorial process but no detailed examination of the players, their roles, and their prerogatives. Instead the book is organized around popular topical areas, such as AIDS and terrorism, to make the material more vital. And I am not going to give away the store by talking about any one of them. Stylistically, the book is easy to read and flows along rapidly. There are a few toss off comments here and there that will divert your train of thought because you expect more. To reiterate, the approach is far from academic. Most people will find the book interesting; all will get some of their buttons pushed; and a few, like me, will wish it a good bit denser.
Rating: 
Summary: More bias
Review: I think the only way to offer the real, full picture is to show particular examples of conservative bias. So here's one. "A few days before Election Day [2000], British journalist Greg Palast broke the story of how Gov. Jeb Bush's minions had illegally purged the names of over 64,000 voters, mostly Democrats, from the rolls in Florida. That revelation having gotten major play in Britain, as well as in "Salon" [a respected online journal], Palast heard from a CBS News producer interested in doing a version of the story. Palast provided her with all of his information on that scandal -- and then gave her the makings of what would have been another hot exclusive:
'I also freely offered up to CBS this information: The office of the governor of Florida, brother of the Republican presidential candidate, had illegally ordered the removal of the names of felons from voter rolls -- real felons, but with the right to vote under Florida law. As a result, thousands of these legal voters, almost all Democrats, would not be allowed to vote.
'One problem: I had not quite completed my own investigation on this matter. Therefore CBS would have to do some actual work, reviewing documents and law and obtaining statements. The next day I received a call from the producer, who said, "I'm sorry, but your story didn't hold up." Well how did the multibillion-dollar CBS network determine this? Why, "we called Jeb Bush's office." Oh. And that was it.' "While it appalled him, that lame response did not surprise him, Palast writes, since it is now 'standard operating procedure for the little lambs of American journalism. One good, slick explanation from a politician or corporate chieftan and it's case closed, investigation over.' So much for the democratic ardor of the 'liberal media' -- an institution every bit as docile and reactionary, in its own ironic weay, as the Fourth Estate in Baghdad or Havana." (Mark Crispin Miller, "The Bush Dyslexicon," p. 275). The point? Goldberg isn't an "objective" journalist. He just plays one on TV. Want more? Start reading things outside of mainstream journalism. It's broken and there's no fixing it until we find a different way to finance mass media. Keep in mind that the strongest lobby opposing corporate finance reform is the networks -- because they'd lose all the advertising money. psst ... TV news is an oxymoron. spread the word.
Rating: 
Summary: We already knew the truth,but now we have details
Review: Anyone who has suffered through the patently obvious slanting of the nightly news will only be made more upset by the sordid details chronicled by Goldberg.He goes through the whole liberal elite system and explains the inherent biases that finds its way into our mass media.He exposes the reporting slants on issues like gun control,AIDS,homelessness and a myriad of other causes and propaganda that the media never tires of misrepresenting and championing.Goldberg even digs into the psyche of those who become journalists and finds a pattern:that they don't care so much about reporting the news as it actually is,but about reporting news in a way that they hope will convince the world to see the world as they do.Yes,journalism as religion and holy cause.That is what it amounts to.Very frightening stuff.
Rating:
Summary: Great book.....!!!!
Review: Bernard goldberg is hardly a right wing hack in fact he's not right wing at all and his emmy awards and 30 years at CBS more than qualifies him to write an honest assessment of his industry. We have known about this left wing bias from political correctness fanaticism to the homeless fraud but now we have an outstanding well written account right from the bowels of CBS. A great read that will anger you to no end but at least the truth is now out. Thank goodness. (...) ........................socks
Rating:
Summary: C'mon, guys, let's be fair and balanced!
Review: Nope, haven't read the book. Looking forward to it, though! But I'm willing to bet most if not all of the reviewers thus far haven't read it either, so I thought I'd help be "fair and balanced" and provide a *negative* ignorant, uninformed review too. Boy, ain't democracy grand. One word of caution, though -- the publisher of the book is Regnery, publishers also of nearly every major whack-job anti-Clintonite screechfest of the last eight years. So, considering the book's company, I'm not sure if we should necessarily expect balance from the book itself. And I'm absolutely certain that we won't be able to expect it from our fellow reviewers. Be absolutely sure of one thing, though: I have no idea what I'm talking about, and neither does pretty much anyone else who's written a review thus far. And this should give you a pretty good idea of how ideology operates, fitting every new item into preconceived political agendas. Cheers, and happy reading when the thing finally comes out.
Rating: 
Summary: Ok I guess, if you don't know anything about TV news
Review: Go right wing! Go go go! Prove that bias! Hold that line!
Anyway, got hold of a review copy. Actually kind of a cool book at times, neat behind-the-scenes stories, Rather comes off kind of cool and principled despite the author's best efforts to the contrary. But I thought everybody but the right wing fringe knew that the "liberal media" is a myth, propagated by very smart propagandists. I mean have these people actually read anything outside of, say, "The Way Things Oughta Be" or Silly Billy O'Really's usual self-righteous maunderings? I mean Faux News is kind of fun to watch, sort of like dwarf tossing, kind of a guilty pleasure in that you know it's really really stupid but it's still kinda funny, you gotta admit it, I mean for example Oh Really is frickin' hilarious (at least I think he's joking, maybe he's not?). But unfortunately Goldberg is serious, and he's actually put together a pretty compelling collection of anecdotes that do amount to a serious indictment of telejournalism. But how come he never admits to the bigger issue: that tv news really belongs to the corporate class, and that the liberal/conservate debate is just a silly smokescreen to cover the real issues? and one more question (since it seems everyone who's written a review thus far really is coming straight from Fox News's reports of the book, largely without having actually read it, it seems -- if Faux News is "fair and balanced," how come everybody who takes Faux News seriously all sound the same?
Rating:
Summary: Goldberg Shows "Courage" In The Face Of False Criticism!
Review: Dan Rather once ended his broadcast with the word "courage," mystifying the entire audience of what he meant at that time. Today, America will become even more free as result of Bernard Goldberg's courage to write about what he witness at CBS News. I never understood how any News Agency could lose money because all they ever had to do is report both sides to all issues, but they can't even do that anymore. Whether Casey at the bat strikes out or hits a home run, it is still a great story. Yet, our mainstream media insist on reporting Casey came from a broken home or beat his dog or something not relevant at all to the facts of the event. The book is an indictment of incompetent management at CBS News permitting such bias. It smacks of elitism that is the true danger against all common men and women everywhere. All free societies are dependent upon a free flow of accurate information so the facts can be judge for the greater whole of society not any one man or woman. The book will confirm what every intelligent citizen already knows that the major Networks lost their creditability to report the news accurately and in a fair unbiased manner a long time ago. They have betrayed the scared trust they speak about and our nation is a victim of such careless behavior. The book itself can serve as evidence for a Shareholders' Class Action lawsuit. Shareholder's of Companies losing money from such practices that permit such ineptitude within its ranks of management should hold the Board of Directors for a failure of oversight. Ratings after all translate into revenues for a Network. A Network losing ratings in the News has a duty to change for the value of stock invested by shareholders if nothing else. Competition for accurate, impartial and responsible news will eventually replace the ones hired with the lack of skills of what the author revealed. You can count on it as you can count on this book being more truthful than any critic can say otherwise!
Rating:
Summary: The author's bias is obvious
Review: "Bias: A Veteran CBS Reporter's Account of How the Media Distort the News" spins the tale so real... but "Round and round... where it lands, no one knows..." except for the reporter. Or maybe the PR guy. You've got your liberals and your conservatives... and the opposite side always is griping that the other is biased. As a writer with a lot of marketing and PR background, I'm always working to appeal to the reporter's bias. We who do PR stuff know who thinks what... few reporters are truly without bias. Therein lay the importance and honesty of this book. Expected your cynicisms to be fed. If you are naive, be ready to be blown away. This is a fantastic expose no one is talking about. But don't just read "Bias: A Veteran CBS Reporter's Account of How the Media Distort the News" and get sucked into negativity. Use the information as tool both professionally and personally. Having written religious stuff for the secular press... knowing the reporter's bias has been important. Instead of getting battered down by the 'liberal press', I worked to educate them... statistically, reporters don't go to church, and therefore, wouldn't understand the complexities of religious reporting. When you read "Bias: A Veteran CBS Reporter's Account of How the Media Distort the News," you'll be thinking of what this can mean to how you watch more smartly. Teach your kidss how to be more critically thinking. I fully recommend "Bias: A Veteran CBS Reporter's Account of How the Media Distort the News." Read a little at 9 pm, then watch the Ten O'Clock news. When you can, read something by Olasky on the same topic. Anthony Trendl
Rating:
Summary: Finally a reporter investigates the media!
Review: The fact that the news media are dominated by liberals has been known by everyone for years. Now a former long-time CBS reporter shows how this overwhelming lack of ideological diversity ends up skewing the news. The media's liberal bias, as Goldberg defines it, is usually unintentional and the product of the fact that they do not associate with people of divergent political views. This book shows how transparent and facile journalists' arguments are when they claim not to be biased. And unlike leftists who charge an imaginary conservative bias, Goldberg uses actual facts and numbers to back him up. Bias seals the case shut that groups such as the Media Research Center, Accuracy in Media and Ratherbiased.com have been building for years.
Rating:
Summary: yawn.
Review: The only surprising aspect of this book is that anyone ever believed that CBS or any other media outlet was bias free. That is an impossibility. Every form of communication is developed from the perspective of the communicator and interpreted by the communicatee. So, of course, Dan Rather is biased -- but Fox News or Rush Limbaugh is not? The neocon right in America bathes themselves in self righteousness and self pity on this issue -- portraying themselves as victims -- in every way, the same victimization they revile in political correctness. This is the essence Goldberg's thesis, that somehow a form of absolute truth exists to which only they themselves are privy, and they seeth at the supposed distortion of this truth by the 'liberal' media. They point to issues that are given coverage, the way it is delivered as promoting some agenda. If the American public has really been so dumbed down it can no longer determine right from wrong, justice from injustice, truth from error, then the conspiracy would have to be much deeper than merely the major TV networks. But the truth of course is no such thing has happened. People judge issues given their own experience and beliefs, and the media does not create a mass of zombies marching in lockstep to the liberal drummer, it merely reflects society as it sees it. There is a wide spectrum of opinion available on any issue -- and those who limit themselves to one do so to their own ignorance. The fact that the reflection would be somehat different had it been developed in a Boise, Idaho than in New York City makes it no less or more valid. Goldberg has written a book of trivial charges merely as an outlet for a grudging resentment of his lacklustre CBS career -- an institution which treated him with kindness despite his mediocre journalistic talents. (...)
| 
