Rating: 
Summary: Well researched and well written
Review: People growing tired of Conservatives whinning will enjoy this book that, unlike most Conservative books, is researched thoroughly and is well written. It reads well, and has a bit of an edge to it, but is none the less fair and accurate. A website...keeps updates on the book and is continually referenced in the book. A myriad of footnotes keeps anyone serious about the truth engaged in this topic. Conservative counterparts to this book tend to do nothing but name-calling and never back up their information, this book does back it up. So unlike Ann Coulter or Bernard Goldberg, Alterman seems to have at least completed high school English.
Rating:
Summary: Review of the audio CD
Review: I ordered the audio CD. First of all let me say that Eric Alterman is correct in his assertions and I completely agree with most everything he says (although his partisanship is strong to the point of being annoying sometimes with his Gore/Clinton love). So, that is why I gave him 5 stars. With that said... DON'T BUY THE AUDIO CD, BUY THE BOOK! No offense Eric, I'm sure it was hard to read the book aloud, but you've got a terrible reading voice. I had a difficult time understanding what you were saying at first. I think it took me until the last CD to actually get used to your voice. The CD's also seem kind of quiet.
Rating:
Summary: Insightful, Fair, and Thorough
Review: I highly recommend this book to anyone who truly cares about "fair and balanced" reporting. Alterman presents a through case, supported by facts, that the conservative bias in the media is pervasive, especially in the political relam. One must only consider the bashing that Clinton and Gore received versus the virtual pass that Bush and his administration are enjoying to this day. In addition, Alterman demonstrates that Coulter and Goldberg were essentially writing extended rants rather than a thoughtful analysis that is supported by studies and research (which this book is).
Rating:
Summary: Excuse me, Amazon admins (if there are any)?
Review: Someone who doesn't know that their moniker should be spelt "Cowabunga Dude" and who has unfortunately fallen victim to Ann Coulter's lying lies has posted a non-reader "review" which is basically nothing more than an excuse for him to espouse his political views. Which would be fine, except for the fact that his post offers absolutely no information whatsoever about this book, and therefore should be removed until such time that he learns the only thing more pathetic than going to a battle of the wits against an unarmed person are those people who march into mental war with only half a gun. Thanks!
Rating: 
Summary: a bit dry, but good information
Review: Very early in his book Alterman demonsrates to the reader that Bernie Goldberg was incorrect about the media labeling conservatives as conservatives more often than liberals as liberals. A study proved Goldberg wrong. He had put this in his book Bias without even researching it. Each chapter of What Liberal Media talks about a different issue. Alterman talks about TV pundits in one chapter, print columnists in the next. The chapter on the 2000 election and the chapter called W's World destroy the idea that the media favors Democrats over Republicans. The only problem with this book is that it is a little difficult to read and my mind kept wandering off at points. I have read other books on politics that were more fun. Alterman has a good website for his book called whatliberalmedia. Click on the appendices to read about some of Ann Coulter's lies.
Rating: 
Summary: the whole truth please
Review: not a bad book, and a good way to see how differeny ideaologies see the other when compared to goldberg (a liberal) or coulter who both laid out the arguement of the liberal bias. what alterman fails to mention are the many people in the media - who are liberal - who know the media is being slanted. i happen to work for a company that is being critized for it's right-wing bias, and the people who work there know that while ours is slanted one way, the others (cnn, bbc) are slanted the other. what people need to do is take news for what it is - propaganda. even if the story is about a cat stuck in a tree, the point is to illicit a response. know what you're being fed.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth is Fuzzy Even if the Lies are Clear
Review: The number of books purporting to show a media bias is increasing monthly. Most suggest a left tilt. Eric Alterman with his WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? is one of the few that urge a right swing. I have read most of the left/right texts and have concluded that the truth of each book is inherently fuzzy since each side complains of unjustified control of the media. Part of the problem in ascertaining bias is that both sides acknowledge that bias exists on both sides. For the liberal left are the major television networks and most leading newspapers headed by the New York Times. For the conservative right are Fox News, most talk radio, and the op-ed of the Wall Street Journal. When Alterman weighs the scales of which set of media outweighs the other, he counters that not only does the right thoroughly control the media, but the right has been so successful in complaining of the opposite, that the right has unfairly garnered much public support and sympathy. As proof that the media is right-dominant, Alterman chooses not so much to defend the left, but to attack the right. Alterman has the uneviable task of defending Bill Clinton's various pecadillos, one that he admits is made more difficult because of Clinton's clear failings. Instead, Alterman attacks the right in general, and George Bush in particular. In his chapter on Bush, Alterman asks questions of a president that,if answered to the left's satisfaction, would have resulted in a paralyzed and ineffective presidency. For example on page 217, he asks, "Does the administration have any hard evidence of Iraq's nuclear program?" The answer is yes, with this evidence coming from Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, and from Iraq itself. Of course, only the hardest of hard evidence--say a gallon or two of sarin--would now qualify. Further, Alterman mentions areas not well noted or understood by most Americans, like the alleged Republican version of Whitewater called the Harken sale, as proof of Bush's underhanded financial deals. Ultimately, what texts such as Alterman's--or any other similar such offer--is the belief that the majority of the American people can read both sides and judge for themselves. With WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA? Eric Alterman fails to offer convincing evidence that the tilt is to the left. His smarmy comments suggest the opposite.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I was looking forward to seeing Mr. Alterman's evidence of a conservatively biased media, but he merely points to commonly known political pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc... There is nothing new offered in the book that can't be examined easily by doing a google search on "conservative" and "media". Buy a different book and just borrow this one from the library...
Rating:
Summary: Liberal who knows that all conservatives are not evil!
Review: This is a surprisingly candid appraisal of the media's move to the right (following the country's rightward movement). While it is partly a polemic, it is hardly a direct response to Bernard Goldberg's overstated book, "Bias." An iconoclast, Alterman hardly hews the party line for the liberals. It is a good read for both conservatives and liberals as long as one retains a good skeptical ear. I liked it very much.
Rating:
Summary: evidence, evidence, evidence
Review: The extensive endnotes in this book proves that the author has done his homework. Where are the notes in "Bias?" Alterman destroys many of Goldberg's charges in this book, and has the endnotes to back up his arguments. The thing about backing up your writing with endnotes is that others can check on your research. Here is where Alterman blows Coulter out of the water, by pointing out the mistakes and outright lies in what passes for her as doucmentation. Hey, all you one-star reviewers - if you think Alterman's arguments are wrong and the evidence non-existant, put up or shut up.
| 
