Rating: 
Summary: Not likely to win "converts" -- and that's a shame.
Review: In "What Liberal Media?," Eric Alterman has done a lot of research to counter a three-decade old "thesis" that seems accepted by middle-America, but not by most university professors and liberals living in our biggest cities. Yet I'm disturbed by Alterman's recent public appearances. They seem to create doubts about the man himself. As a former news director and reporter, and present-day media strategist by trade, I know credibility is fundamentally critical to win "converts." But Alterman doesn't have it. A columnist in one of America's most liberal publications, "The Nation," Alterman doesn't appear as convincing as Bernard Goldberg did, for example, at MSNBC this month, surrounded by a huge crowd of potentially hostile college students in Miami. Alterman's dismissal of Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" is unconvincing. "Bias" was ground-breaking because: 1) it was written by a liberal Democrat who had insider information about his experiences with senior editors at CBS News, and, 2) it was filled with information, however anecdotal and regarded as "unscientific" by some, collected over three decades in the great city of New York. Alterman trashes Goldberg. But Goldberg's arguments were plausible and not as loony-sounding as Alterman tries to make. People in newsrooms DO NOT have a hidden agenda. Liberal bias occurs naturally when you're surrounded by like-minded peers striving to be "politically correct." Walter Cronkite is an avowed leftist. But you'd never know it if you watched him on TV. And that's how, Goldberg says, it should be. Alterman's ability to win converts, as Goldberg did, will depend on reactions from people who MATTER. If only liberals buy or read this, very little will be gained. It would be nice if a conservative said, "you know, wait a minute, Alterman has a point." That's what Goldberg did, casting seeds of doubt in liberals without ranting, which is what Alterman and Coulter do on opposite ends of the political spectrum! "Bias" was a memoir of frustrations, written by a liberal who feels journalism should offer balance to viewers who "live between Manhattan and Malibu." Goldberg torched his career in network news. Alterman, a liberal, preaches to a choir of liberals. Goldberg, a liberal, reached out to both liberals and conservatives, many who remain friends. In the end, Alterman is in the same position as Limbaugh, but less powerful; hence, his effort to win "converts" will prove futile. If Alterman accomplishes half of what Goldberg's "Bias" did, then "What Liberal Media?" will have longer shelf life and relevance. This is a good start to force the ocean liner into a U-turn. But Alterman needs other voices, ironically, conservative "insiders" who agree with him, to create momentum. He's worth reading, but despite many footnotes, his book lacks the necessary firepower that made "Bias" such a compelling "inside" read. Liberals had no choice but to take Goldberg's book seriously; only the mean-spirited dismissed it as musings from a disgruntled ex-employee. Conservatives, however, may pass on "What Liberal Media?" because of its "absolute" tone. And that would be a shame.
Rating: 
Summary: Thoughtful and Convincing -- Not Just Coulter from the Left
Review: Eric Alterman persuasively makes the case that the message conveyed by the establishment media is skewed towards the right and towards the Republican Party in particular. He demonstrates how organized right-wingers skew political coverage by "working the refs": claiming "liberal bias" no matter how deferential the press corps is towards extreme right-wing views. If you have any doubt of this phenomenon, just look at the one-star drive-by reviews on this board by people who obviously haven't read the book. They're scared because Alterman is exposing their racket. Alterman doesn't just cite examples of conservative bias in the news establishment; he shows how supposedly "liberal" mainstays of the media such as the New York Times and Washington Post defer to a right-wing establishment consensus. For example, he chronicles the way these papers uncritically accepted Kenneth Starr's political culture war against Bill Clinton as if it had been some kind of impartial search for truth and justice. But the crucial difference between Alterman's book and those of Goldberg, Coulter et al. is not just that he draws a different conclusion about the media. Rather, it's that he focuses on the structural forces that contribute to the messages that American consumers of news and political opinion, instead of harping on the views of particular journalists on cultural matters such as abortion and gay rights. He shows, with detailed facts and analysis, how the drive for corporate media profits has obliterated any journalistic standards that once prevailed, and how the petty personal resentments of people in Washington like David Broder and Sally Quinn created outrageously biased election coverage that handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush. Compare this approach with the superficial rantings of recent books claiming the existence of a liberal media. And contrary to what some non-reader reviewers of this book claim, Alterman makes no secret of his own political views, and even bends over backwards to acknowledge when they may affect his perception of an issue.
Rating: 
Summary: More...
Review: Garbage and lies from one of the most deluded fools in America. Purchase this book if you feel like wasting the hard earned money the left thinks you owe them and all of their lazy welfare cases.
Rating:
Summary: Right wing media
Review: Turn on the radio and listen to the drug-addled Rush Limbaugh or his neo-idiot companion Sean "Hamfist" Hannity. Pick up a newspaper and find one that is willing to expose the falsities of the Bush administration. The unquestioning belief that the media is left wing -- when it cowered before the Bush onslaught leading up to the Iraq war and afterwards -- is one of this nation's major failings. There is a strong anti-intellectual bias in this country ... and all we want is simple answers. Alterman has done a good job with this and in general in pointing out the hypocrisy of right wing allegations. The truth is that the big media is kissing the White House ass in order to become even more monopolistic and right wing. Rupert Murdoch, the most powerful media mogul, became an American citizen solely so that he could take over American outlets. Now he ties to influence and move to the right politics in Australia, Great Britain and the United States. And he has become a strong supporter of totalitarian regimes in such places as China. Alterman points out that we're closing our eyes to what should be obvious.
Rating: 
Summary: more people should read this
Review: What Liberal Media is a little dry at times but you can learn a lot from it. One of the best chapters was the chapter on the 2000 election. Alterman pointed out how the media would distort facts to make it look like Gore was lying when he really wasn't. A good example of this was with Love Story. Alterman discusses the different types of media such as print and tv punditry. The newspapers who endorsed a candidate chose to endorse Bush by a large margin. Another reviewer asked what the media has said that is nice about Bush. I will tell you. The media always talks about Bush as being moral and a good man even if you disagree with his politics. No one ever seems to question this. Just because a person talks about how moral they are does not mean they are morally superior. Bush was not morally superior to Gore. He is not morally superior to Kerry either, and he definitely is not braver. It is not brave to send other people to get killed. Bush knew that by joining the National Guard at that time he wouldn't have to fight.
Rating: 
Summary: huh?
Review: I will try to be kind here. The basic argument I got from reading this was that because conservatives own the companies that produce the news, that automatically means that you're going to get conservative spin from those media sources. Call me foolish (and I'm sure a lot of elitist liberals will) but that doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Do you watch CNN? Do you watch NBC, CBS, ABC nightly news? Tell me one thing that has been said good about President Bush (yeah, that's right. PRESIDENT Bush) over the past three years. They blast him everyday, non-stop. You know the difference between Rush, Hannity, and Mike Reagan compared to these news networks? Hannity, Rush, and Mike Reagan will tell you that they lean conservative. You'll never hear from the elite media that they lean left. I will give Eric Alterman credit for being well spoken, and that's why I'll give him 2 stars. This book did make me angry and I kind of chuckled here and there, because I don't agree with it, but it was a good effort.
Rating:
Summary: "What socialist media?" by RexCurry.net
Review: This book needs more info on why the lamestream media will never mention that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics killed 62 million people; The Peoples' Republic of China killed 35 million; and the National Socialist German Workers' Party killed 21 million. As a lawyer, I would like to know why the media are socialist deniers of the Wholecaust by the socialist trio of atrocities. And more info is needed on why the media don't mention the full accurate phrase "National Socialist German Workers' Party" but exclusively use a hackneyed misleading abbreviation. The media use the word "Nazi" to cover-up for the monstrous National Socialist German Workers' Party, in a vain effort to rehabilitate socialism. And any search of any newspaper's (or any media's) search engine will show it.
Rating:
Summary: Strong argument for the impossible
Review: We know that the media is left-wing ; everybody knows that, right? Not Eric Alterman and he'll tell you why the media is far more conservative than you think. While I think he overstates his case, this is an excellent, well-researched book. I don't think he'll change too many minds,as people who are convinced the media is liberal are not going to change their minds just by reading a book, even such a persuasive one as What Liberal Media. I would ask any readers of this book to read this with an open mind and perhaps you might come around to Alterman's point of view.
Rating:
Summary: Foolish
Review: This book is nothing more than lies. Any reasonable person would not beleive this nonsense. All of the big names in the media are extremely liberal and very influential. Whenever a celebrity comes out with a conservative stand the media bashes him. It happens all of the time with many types of celebrities, but when an celebrity takes a liberal stand he is looked upon as good. Eric Alterman is a very misinformed man who needs to be straightened out before anyone else reads these lies.
Rating:
Summary: ON THE LAMENTABLE QUALITY OF AMERICAN FISH & CHIPS...
Review: Okee-Dokee...I have now slogged through Mr. Goldberg's book on how the media is too liberal and Mr. Alterman's book on how it is actually too conservative. Having survived, I now come back up the mountain to give you all my opinion. The problem with both of these books is best expressed by comparing them to the main weakness of your typical domestic order of Fish & Chips. Here in America one has no problem finding good chips (take a good look at our collective waistelines) but the Fish is rarely, if ever, fried to perfection. Both authors fail to even fry the right fish here. Both Alterman (who by the way is probably the most engaging guest ever to appear on C-Span's Washington Journal) and Goldberg (whose recent work on HBO's Real Sports proves him to be a journalist of first rate talent) dance nicely through their themes and critiques. I'll even be super-generous and say that they are both mostly right in what they say. The problem is this--for all their beautiful dancing, their failure to percieve what should be their true quarry is fatal. Both books become mere partisan babble. Each author, spouting partial arguments that ultimately turn inward, is left, much like the featured ballerina in Stravinsky's Le Sacre du printemps, dancing to their own death. Yes the media is too liberal. Yes the media is too conservative. Both Goldbeg and Alterman argue this well. They then declare the case closed. If only it were. The gutwrenching truth of it all is that the media is only as liberal and as conservative as its owners need it to be to serve certain interests. We live in the age of megolithic media control. There is no real diversity in major media. The minute there is, it is either co-opted or bought out. The media plays faux conservatitism or zirconium liberalism to serve the needs of its owner's real politik and to pit any possible opponents against one another in the name of tired ideology. I may be biased, but I never saw either of these books getting around to addressing this. Though superbly written (golden-crispy fries if you will), both of these pieces of fish are underdone and a little greasy.
| 
