Rating: 
Summary: Raving lunatics
Review: I enjoyed this book. It was a fast read. Was it shocking? No. Revelational? No. If you've already read "Slander" by Anne Coulter or listened to Rush for more than two weeks, there's really nothing here that will change your life.In fact, it's almost better to sit and read the reviews here on Amazon. Holy cow! There are now more than 700 reviews on this books alone. And the tone of the reviews gives you a quick insight into how people (not just the media) view, or perhaps more appropriately filter, bias. These reviews alone would make a fascinating study in American culture.
Rating: 
Summary: What we already knew
Review: Even my liberal friends knew that the news was biased and sort of smirked about it. The smirks are now gone since Fox news came on the scene and even MSNBC has attempted to give both sides with some of their new shows.
I think that the balance is getting there but not yet arrived completely. Now we need an expose of NPR, etc.
Rating: 
Summary: Like a torque wrench to the brain...
Review: Bernard Goldberg's Bias is simply a publicized version of his hatred for Dan Rathers and other "media elites". I went into this book with an open mind. The first chapter almost induced vomiting. What is Goldberg trying to prove? His thoughts are scatters and unoriginal. It is unclear what his real thoughts are on the "issue" at hand. And not once does he mention Fox News. why? Because they have such a heavy conservative bias that they would shatter his blanket statement about liberal bias, which is sickeningly unsupported...
Rating: 
Summary: Angry At The World
Review: While the topic of liberal bias is interesting and--like conservative bias, environmental bias, American bias, corporate bias, male bias, yadda yadda yadda--occasionally evident, Goldberg has done a poor job of discussing it. BIAS is self-serving, to say the least; it's author is also irritatingly self-absorbed. The whole book can be paraphrased as 'I, Bernard Goldberg, the only straight-thinking and non-biased journalist ever, spent many years telling my wild-eyed liberal bosses that they were evil and bent, but they were too stupid to recognize my obvious genius.' Perhaps most discouraging, Goldberg mentions only in passing in the book's forward that nearly all talk radio, a growing number of cable networks and FOX News in its entirety are blatently and overtly conservative; he then spends the 234 pages whining about instances of vaguely perceived liberal bias on the big three networks--particularly the network that refused to make him evening news anchor, by the way--and concludes that Americans are being misled by the Left. Hogwash. Another favorite topic of the new edition is how those horrible liberals refused to interview Goldberg about the first run of BIAS. He even ridicules networks and programs that never talk about bestsellers, because they didn't make the exception for his oh-so-important tome. Paragraph after paragraph is devoted to the supposed shut-out until--finally--Goldberg gets around to mentioning that he DID get to hype his book on the TODAY show. But that's not good enough for him either: it was only "a dog and pony show." If you're looking for books about journalism and the problems you'll encounter in the business, look around. There are some good ones. Skip BIAS, though. It is nothing more than the whining of a frustrated man who, to be perfectly blunt, is not quite as smart or nearly as unbiased as he obviously believes.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Read
Review: Very interesting perspective on the prevalent liberal bias in the media from a TRUE insider. More telling is the fact that he admits to agree with the more liberal viewpoint BUT finds it disturbing that it is presented as OBJECTIVE journalism. This conflict is what gave rise to the book.
Rating:
Summary: Should be called, why Bernard thinks he is so great.
Review: I went into this book with an open mink, looking forward to hearing an argument for a point of view opposite of my own. But all I got was a whiny old man, who is mad that he got fired. The entire book is written on about 3 ... examples. Bernard Shaw is either really stupid, or really sheltered. He takes on a constant me againstthem stance, and all you read about is how wrong and evil everyone else is, and how saintly and noble Bernard is. I am so upset that I spent time and money on this book. Please don't make the same mistake. Bernard, if you read this, get over it, dude. Just let it go. And open your eyes, my friend. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Rating:
Summary: Important Book, Glib Delivery
Review: I came to this book with prejudices in favor of the arguments it presents. I have long believed that news content is filtered according to (a) its potential for Neilsen ratings, (b) not causing offense to advertisers, and (c) not causing offense to sources of information - especially governmental ones. I'm not a believer in vast right or left wing conspiracies, but I do think that there are strong herd instincts amongst both buyers and sellers in the Marketplace of Ideas. I found the book fascinating. Unlike several other reviewers, I really enjoyed the personal anecdotes about Big Media's reaction to the author's bias charges. And I liked the fact that he named recognizable names. I though he did a good job laying out his argument, and separating the bias issue (e.g. whether Forbes' flat tax plan got biased treatment at the hands of the news) from the underlying politics (e.g. the political merits of Forbes' flat tax plan). I've given the book 4 stars because I think it could be improved in a couple of areas. The style of writing is just too glib for my tastes. I also thought that his efforts to provide real / scientifically gathered data to contrast with the figures included in news stories were inconsistent. Whistleblowers are increasingly important in a society dominated by The Spin Of The Big. A tip 'o the hat to Bernard Goldberg for having the courage to speak up.
Rating: 
Summary: The media is biased? WOW!!! That's real news!!!
Review: Despite more than 30 years in the media, this book indicates Bernard Goldberg has little idea about the function, purpose or real meaning of the media. Goldberg doesn't seem to understand that "news" is not an airplane landing safely, "news" is when an airplane crashes. In America, the government is supposed to operate honestly, efficiently and with equality for all; news is searching for and finding examples when government falls short of these ideals. The prime function of the news media is not to flatter those in power, it is "to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable." It means the media has a general "bias" against the status quo, the Establishment and conservatives because such institutions usually oppose social changes which would improve our society. Progress in America is a constant debate between the impulse to revolutionary change and a desire to preserve an unchanged past. This free and open debate is what makes America great. There are no final truths in America, merely a continuing debate on the nature of the balance in our society. If you want to be a cheerleader, go write stories about sports. Bias? Of course there's news bias. News is reported by fallible reporters, guided by even more fallible editors (I've been both); in Arizona, The Arizona Republic (named for the Republican party) has never made a secret of its desire to make this a one-party Republican state. The Tucson Citizen was even more blatant; it's right-wing enough that a Citizen editor once told me the Wall Street Journal is "a communist-front newspaper." Goldberg fails to understand that all media is biased. Objectivity to him is bias to me, and vice versa. Every reader, listener and viewer must always be skeptical; sadly, he questions only the liberal media without understanding conservatives are equally biased. His attack serves his purpose; no one rushes out to buy a book which claims Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, Fox News or the Journal are conservative. Goldberg is as guilty of bias as those he attacks. In other words, he's a pretentious twit (which is what critics of the Citizen used to be called). The blunt truth is the media offers what the public wants. Both the Citizen and the Republic in Arizona have amazing low circulation coverage, because people don't like their conservative bias. Would a "liberal" paper do better? It's been tried in Arizona, and every attempt has failed. The Republic, recently bought by Gannett, is trying a more "middle of the road" approach to boost circulation -- and conservatives are predictably denouncing the new "bias" of what liberals used to call a John Birch Society mouthpiece. Goldberg would have done far better to illustrate the bias on all sides of the news, a bias which exists because we are all human. He should have told readers ". . . . . here's why you should think for yourself, instead of being spoon-fed opinions by the media." But then, such an "objective" view wouldn't sell many books. Of course not. The media remains popular by staying on the attack, whether the targets of its attacks are liberal or conservative. A century ago you could sell papers by attacking the Devil; today, the equivalent is attacking God. Despite that, I don't see any sign of either God or the Devil becoming unpopular or extinct. Goldberg writes to make bundles of money, just like the comfortable complacent targets of his book. His attack is well-deserved, timely and accurate. If the media is to survive, prosper and be trusted (should I say doubted?), it should be subject to the same vitriolic attacks as the institutions it attacks. The promise of a free media in a free society is that criticism strengthens our business, religious and social life; likewise, the more blistering attacks on the media, the better it will do its job. The media deserves to be treated with precisely the same critical scrutiny as it gives everything else in society. Let's say, "comfort the afflicted media, afflict the comfortable media." The idea of media objectivity is as pretentious and false as conservative or liberal objectivity. However, for a bitter attack on some of the most comfortable media, this is a good book to buy and read.
Rating:
Summary: Axe Grinding
Review: This book is a ridiculous example of someone being embraced by the conservative right merely for confirming their beliefs, whether they are true or not. In this book, Goldberg takes great pains to attack anyone who wronged him at CBS. His "research" into media bias is based on his own opinion, no research, or unsubtantiated research. For a real treatment of the interaction between politics and media check out 'What Liberal Media' by Eric Alterman. At least he attempts to research the subject and approach it in a fact based way.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Read, Won't Make the Case for All
Review: Bernard Goldberg's years as a journalist shine through in this work, half-memoir and half-expose. Goldberg's prose makes it an easy read, and his discussion of many of the bad habits of the media makes for very interesting reading. However, Goldberg's collection of anecdotes doesn't add up to a conclusive thesis. I'll concede my own bias up front: I do think that the mainstream media tilts to the left in the manner described by Goldberg. However, my own personal beliefs don't add up to a proven case, and while Goldberg's book provides some good food for thought, it's not going to convince anyone who isn't already leaning in that direction. Then again, given that a majority of Americans already believe that, it's hardly surprising the book has done so well. To his credit, Goldberg doesn't use his book to call for an attack on the media. Instead, he simply asks the mainstream media to at least admit the possibility of bias and take a long hard look at itself. However, if Goldberg's account is accurate, it's unlikely that will happen any time soon. In the interim, _Bias_ provides an interesting insight into the media from a man who spent close to thirty years as a reporter. For readers looking to gain some insight into the mainstream media, _Bias_ is a good reference.
| 
