Rating: 
Summary: A poorly researched, disorganized mess
Review: After reading "Bias", I found the title to be misleading. After all, the book is focuses little on media bias, rather its pages are filled with Goldberg's scathing attacks on former CBS journalists, mainly Dan Rather. When the book coves liberalism in the media, I found its conclusions to be shoddy at best.For instance, Goldberg recalled an incident where CBS journalist Dan Rather identified senators as they were called to an oath book, during a Clinton impeachment hearing. Goldberg then described how Rather labeled "every conservative" at the proceeding, and did not do so for the liberals. When making various media appearances promoting his new book, he cited this example frequently. Unfortunately, it's not true. According to a CBS transcript of the hearing (January 7, 1999) Rather only labeled 3 senators as "conservative". This is just one of the many instances of inaccuracies I found scattered about the book. Regardless, little is devoted into proving the media bias he claims--or even ellaborating and explaining what he means by a "liberal bias". The book, really, is only fodder for conservatives. It's not a real piece of journalism.
Rating: 
Summary: Hits the spot in parts, but muddled elsewhere
Review: Bernard Goldberg book is a large part opinion, some real issues, others seemingly just a vehicle for him to lay into his old CBS bosses and in particular Dan Rather. He makes fair points about the politically correct sensibilities of the media, an unfortunate trait common to mainstream TV media accross the western world, siting the TV couverage of the homeless and the distorting scare-mongering couverage of the AIDS problem in America. But as to whether these distortions amount to a mass conspiracy to marginalise conservatives, and promote lofty liberal ideas is debatable. Goldberg does not ever demonstrate consistently news stories being systematically 'liberalised', instead relying on a few selected quotes off-air by various news anchors belittling conservatives, and some larger examples with the one regarding Steve Forbes 'flat tax' inititative repeated several times in the book. What Goldberg does not mention is that this story, aired at the time of the 1996 GOP primaries largely favoured Bob Dole, with a string of high profile Republicans such as Newt Gringrich lining up to rubbish Forbes idea. However the idea of CBS couverage favouring a mainstream Republican would not play well with Goldbergs largely conservative audience. If Goldberg could demonstrate that the media elites supposed liberal bias was allowed to regularly influence and distort news coverage then there would be a big story, but Goldbergs evidence is few and far between for someone who claims to have witnessed this bias for nearly thirty years. too often he asserts himself and his victimisation without offering an explanation as to why CBS chose to shoot him down as they did, with his likening of the 'media elite' to mafiosi a stupid exaggeration. What this book does best is demonstrate mindless political correctness that has been allowed to infiltrate many areas of society, rather than a mechanical liberal plot to control the nations newsrooms only unique to the media.
Rating: 
Summary: Vindication
Review: Can you say "Dan Rather" or "Eason Jordan."
The one-star "reviews" notwithstanding, Goldberg's book has been proven correct. Rather and Jordan are only the beginning. The worst, most biased, newspaper in the country, The Wasington Post, has 11 "liberal" columnists, 4 conservatives. It is, consequently, the worst propaganda disseminator in the country.
We need more Bernard Goldberg's to tell the truth.
Rating:
Summary: Eye opening
Review: An eye opening work written and published at considerable personal risk. Mr. Goldberg wrote the truth as he experienced it and in the process ran the risk or ruining his professional reputation and career. I was shocked at some of the references to reporting style and substance. Wonderful book and well worth the time.
Rating:
Summary: Goldberg reveals his own bias and ignorance
Review: Bernard Goldberg would probably accuse me of being biased, and I confess, I am. After dropping fifteen dollars and slogging through this overblown tattletale pamphlet I was sorely disappointed. I thought I might finally read something that truly exposed the "liberal media bias" conspiracy we all hear so much about these days. Instead, what I got was a poorly written, gossip-ridden, whiny screed by a very bitter man.
What I've finally realized is that "liberal media bias" is a huge red herring for several reasons:
For starters, with no irony whatsoever, conservative talking heads and pundits like Mr. Goldberg regularly complain about liberal bias on and in the same networks and newspapers they claim are the worst offenders.
In addition, there are any number of unabashedly conservative media outlets nationwide: Fox News, Clear Channel, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, MSNBC, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, American Spectator, Ken Hamblin, Michael Savage, and the list goes on.
What's more, even traditionally progressive news outlets like The New York times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Atlantic Monthly have drunk deep the liberal media Kool-Aid and shifted further right in their reportage.
The fact is that the nation's information pipeline is now owned and controlled by a mere handful of massive multi-media conglomerates. Corporations are by their very nature conservative. They're businesses and their business is to make money. They don't profit by straying too far to one side or challenging the Establishment status quo. They can't afford it. They would risk losing viewers and/or readership and millions of dollars from advertisers who regularly pull or threaten to pull their ads over news stories or programming they don't support or wish to be associated with.
The news just isn't the news anymore. Bias isn't the problem and Mr. Goldberg seems to miss this point entirely. The problem is that the news has been reduced to superficial infotainment.
To say that a handful of dinosaurs at a Jurassic network like CBS have a particular bias is old news and misses the larger point entirely.
Ultimately, 'Bias' is a self-serving hit piece that acts as a distraction from the more serious media issues facing our country. Two things are vital to a functioning democratic republic: a well-informed citizenry and an educated citizenry. Unfortunately, in this sound bite driven culture we have lost both.
When Bernard Goldberg tackles the bigger problem of the "lowest common denominator media bias" or the "mindless consumerism media bias" or the "infotainment media bias" then perhaps I'll be ready to plunk down a few more saw bucks. Until then, I'll be posting 'Bias' on Amazon's used book section to get some of my hard earned dollars back. My time wasted reading this book I can never get back.
Rating: 
Summary: Goldberg was right; this much should be obvious to all
Review: The recent report on Hurricane Dan (or Rathergate, or the Bush National Guard papers affair) that resulted in 4 people getting fired at CBS and the disgraceful end of Dan Rather's career as anchorman certainly vindicates Goldberg, and will hopefully continue the discussion of Bias in the Main Stream Media. When this book first came out, the argument was over whether there was pervasive bias in major media outlets, and in particular, CBS. Now, the only discussion would seem to be not how much bias there is at major news outlets, but what alternative news sources exist that would better serve the inquistive public. The answer seems to be talk radio and the Internet. So, though Goldberg's book is to be taken seriously, the way people find the news (and the way news conglomerates try to make profits) is changing so dramatically that "Bias" is getting rather dated.
I was going to give this book three stars, or not review it on Amazon at all, for its overly personal view and simplistic discussion. Easy reading is fine and benefits many poople, but the sticker price of the book should come down accordingly. I thought that media bias would be covered more comprehensively and more professionally in some other book (which I probably wouldn't read). CBS News, 60 Minutes, and much of the rest of main stream media seem like artifacts of 20th century, a more naive time when truth wasn't as important to a lot of the working population. Hopefully Mr. Goldberg will sieze the day, with the help of better writers, to help unearth the culture of bias while there are enough people that still care. Rosebud.
Rating:
Summary: A worthwhile read for all.
Review: I'm hesitant to review a book of this nature since so many reviews of books addressing politically charged topics boil down to little more than "hooray for my side" (to say nothing of the responses to those reviews here on Amazon). Bias is one of those increasingly rare books, however, that actually manages to cut across the political divide and offer some observations that should appeal to and engage partisans on both sides of the aisle.
The over-simplified marketing of Bias did it and its author a great disservice. Contrary to public perception, this is not yet another screed railing against the "liberal / mainstream" media. While Goldberg does chastise CBS for being too beholden to a liberal orthodoxy, his more general criticisms of how news departments conduct themselves could just as easily apply to Fox News. Lost in the all the hysteria of the whole liberal vs. conservative conflict is Goldberg's apt observation that the quality of network news began to decline once the networks demanded that their nightly news shows earn a profit. At that point, integrity and accuracy took a back seat to ratings and sensationalism. And although Goldberg does not expressly say as much, I suspect that he would agree that this pandering to the lowest common denominator in order to attract viewers is certainly not a crime confined to just the "liberal" media.
When Goldberg does turn his attention to CBS's liberal tendencies, he generally does so with a measured tone and thoughtful approach. Goldberg's primary criticism of the CBS news department is not so much that it is liberal (Goldberg certainly does not regard himself a conservative), as it is that the department is simply far too provincial. Dan Rather and his producers cannot even begin to appreciate where they truly fall on the political continuum because they tend to run in relatively small professional and social circles and thereby isolate themselves from diverse and opposing viewpoints. Naturally then, they are inclined to mistakenly regard their viewpoints as moderate and mainstream and anything diverging from those viewpoints as extremist or odd. Again, it seems to me that this is a charge that one could also lay at the feet of Fox News.
Bias is deserving of some mild criticism. Early one, Goldberg tries far too hard to be hip and funny and his attempts are both irritating and distracting. Later on, he has a hard time divorcing his personal frustration with Rather from his more general observations. Goldberg does tend to rely upon anecdotal evidence at times but since his aim is to provide food for thought more so than convince and convert, this tendency can probably be excused. Overall, an interesting and worthwhile read.
Rating:
Summary: A must-read book!
Review: Ever think the news appears to be slanted? After moving to Boston, I noticed more infiltration of opinions (and not during the editorial segment!) in the news than actual straight-shooting reporting of the news than I had ever recalled observing before! Bernard Goldberg has blown the whistle on the media establishment and their overwhelming tendency to have their own personal biases penetrate the reporting of the news in this excellent must-read book!
Rating:
Summary: An author with a bias himself
Review: Do news station report with bias? Of course, everybody has a bias. The question is of what degree do stations allow their bias to play a factor. People tend to forget the lovefest the media had with Regan, or how much they enjoyed exposing Clinton. The media was never as far to the left as it is now to the right.
Rating:
Summary: It is an interesting read but
Review: Let me begin by saying that if you throw me out of an airplane, I will land left of center, but not by much. I believe a lot of things that seem contradictory. I think that gays should have the right to marry and recieve national protections, but I think that is for the states to decide. I am for affirmative action, but I don't believe that white males should keep apologizing for mistakes our forefathers might have done. What I don't believe in is that the media has an intentional liberal bias. All that really is a perception that people think they are noticing when issues they care about are not being covered fairly. Broadcast news is what it is, just like Foxnews, CNN, and BBCWorld are what they are. Each of those entities color their news reports around who they have on their air and not through the lens of some conspiracy to portray the news as something that is not "reality." Reality is subjective and varies within each individual. It is more the viewer's fault that he or she only gets his or her news from one source rather than from a variety of sources. Broadcast journalism is lazy because the viewership allows it to be.
This book has many good points. I like the chapters where the author focused on issues rather than his anger. In the chapters dealing on homelessness, Aids, Males as targets, and on home alone children, the author is very objective. He presented the facts and offered what the other side said on them. There are many things about these chapters I could not help agree with. I agree that the Media focuses on what the considered to be the typical sanitized version of reality they want to present. I think that Aids is not really as big a problem as we are led to believe. I agree that the networks are hesitant to place minorities in prominent roles. I think that Political correctness has gone too far, and I am tired of being blamed for all of societies problems just because I am a white male. These chapters are extremely fair and objective in its reporting.
That having been said, I think that other chapters in the book should be taken with a grain of salt. They are too subjective for my tastes. Their whole premise seems to be based around two pillars: One, the authors reason for liberal bias in media. He used the one clear example of biased reporting that he could find to justify what he has been feeling for the 26 years he had been working at CBS News: and two, the anger that he has for feeling betrayed by CBS News, and in essence, Dan Rather. I think that you are being unfair towards Dan Rather. If he is liberal, please tell me his agenda. Also, you have this amazing double standard when it comes to his background. If he mentioning that he joined the marines twice when he is defending himself towards your percieved "attack" does not matter, then why do you go into your background in great detail in chapter 4: Identity Politics? If his background does not matter, why does yours? It is not fair for you to belittle him for mentioning his past while placing such emphasis on yours. It is proving that you are just as biased as him in thinking that personal history is important. Also, the analogies do not work because they are expressed through the same anger that you color your perception of Dan Rather with. The mafia is not the media because you would not be alive long enough to write this book. I think that you would have spent.
That having been said, I think that everyone should read this book. Although I do not agree with everything within it, I will say that it is nicely written and has a lot of great points. If I have offended the author, I will apologize for that, but at the same time I will not retract it. Reality is boring if everyone agrees.
|
