Rating: 
Summary: A Voice of Reason
Review: That anyone can even pretend to argue that there is a liberal media in existance today is amazing to me. However, these people will never be satisfied with any evidence they are presented with, no matter how compelling.Eric Alterman does something that Ann Coulter would never do, because it would undermine the entire purpose of her books: he has a reference section. That's right- instead of expecting you to take his word for it, Alterman presents each argument and has numbers that refer to the back of the book, where you'll find the research that went into the points he's made. You won't find blind hatred and pointless statements- Alterman sticks to the facts, and presents some very eye-opening evidence. Just when you think you've read the most outrageous comments that a hatemonger has made, you'll see their true colors coming through. I started reading the book wondering how anyone could POSSIBLY claim that there's a liberal media, and ended up wondering how some of these people aren't having rocks thrown at them everytime they walk down the street. In a media filled with angry white people screaming about how you're either with them or you're anti-patriotic, it is refreshing to know that some sanity still exists. Definitely a must read for anyone that still has an opinion of their own. The only downside is that those with short attention spans might not find this to be the most "fun" book. Nonetheless, it is an important one.
Rating:
Summary: Operation Correction
Review: Talented political journalist Eric Alterman has undertaken a correction operation that has been badly needed for some time. He substitutes factual analysis for the shrill hyperbole and uncontrollable screed unleashed by Coulter. It should be noted that it was George W. Bush's cousin, John Ellis, who launched the wave of network projections toward his relative in the early morning following election day in November 2000. This gave Bush the presumed look of a winner, undermining any election challenge on the part of Vice-President Gore. This important fact, sadly, has been reported all too infrequently. Coulter laments that it has been mentioned at all, adding this to her foolish list of left wing media preferential treatment. Alterman has plenty of ammunition, and it is appropriately aimed at Coulter along with Fox Television, which absurdly promotes the claim of objectivity. In addition to being owned by strongly rightward leaning Rupert Murdoch, Fox's news director is former Republican campaign point man for Nixon, Reagan and Bush I, Roger Ailes. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly run an adjunct of the Bush Communications room which is every bit as partisan as that run by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. O'Reilly rules as sole arbiter of the truth. Confront him with a fact he cannot answer and you are promptly booted off the air, as evidenced by the treatment accorded articulate liberals such as Bob Fertik and Bill Hartung. Interestingly, both Fertik and Hartung have challenged O'Reilly to debate anywhere but his own program. There has been no response from O'Reilly, who, like Rush Limbaugh, pulls a fast plug when the going gets tough. On the subject of Limbaugh, how much air time has he been provided to launch a never ending procession of half truths? His distortions have been productively exposed by Al Franken and others. Meanwhile he marches on and on, with nobody of a liberal stripe receiving that kind of air time to launch little more than vitriolic attacks. Is this an example of left wing media domination? Alterman's point was amply proven in the recent Iraqi War, in which, on both CNN and Fox, the emphasis was shown on restoring order while failing to focus the deadly tragedies occurring amid much uncertainty regarding the future. The subject of civilian deaths and casualties was not addressed in the American media in the way that it was in Britain with the brilliant reportage on BBC, which informed Americans tuned to in order to find out what was really happening. As Alterman concludes, the Coulter-Goldberg-O'Reilly-Hannity axis is no more than a phony ruse to con Americans into believing an absurdity while, at the same time, an effort to intimidate the media out of providing the kind of reporting that is sorely lacking, and which media forces fear will prompt a backlash of accusations claiming liberal media bias.
Rating: 
Summary: An amazing case of totally distorting the facts....
Review: An entire of book of misquotes and distorted facts. I am amazed that the author hasn't been sued for the misrepresentations that he has put forth as fact in this book.
Rating:
Summary: Alterman¿s attempt to distort reality...
Review: Alterman's 'What Liberal Media?' is one of those books that are far more appropriate for the fiction section of a bookstore. In this book, he looks at only a small number of conservative news and commentary outlets, but conveniently ignores the huge mass of liberal ones. Alterman attacks the evil Fox News, but fails to see anything significantly wrong with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC. He's in an uproar about the comparatively small Weekly Standard, but what about Newsweek, Time, Harper's, NPR, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, etc. Do they seem overtly left-wing to Alterman? Apparently not. He didn't seem to get in a panic about those either. Strange how he really had nothing to say about the most influential newspaper in the country, the New York Times, with its extremely liberal editorialists. Alterman writes, "Conservatives have spent billions during the last three decades, both to pressure the mainstream media to move rightward and to create their own parallel media structure, which serves the same purpose as it provides an alternative viewpoint both to the faithful and the gullible." A very dishonest and erroneous position at best. Why would conservatives feel it was necessary to build a "parallel media structure" in the first place? Probably because all of the existing media structures, including the entertainment industry and academia, were so hostile toward conservative opinions, that the only way to compete was to set up their own. Alterman simply wants to drive the liberal media even further to the left. He even admits, "elite media reporting favors gun control, campaign finance reform, gay rights, and the environmental movement." Apparently he could never conceive of any media outlet being too liberal, and any drift to the right, no matter how small, he views as an alarming situation. It's also a proven fact that the vast majority of journalists vote Democrat. Yet Alterman would also dismiss this because the Democrats simply aren't liberal enough for him. Also what he does throughout most of the book is to link so-and-so with this or that, and so this guilt by association is what makes the media really "conservative" according to Alterman. He attempts to discredit motives instead of arguing the facts - an old trick. Strange how the "conservative" media seems to be in step with a liberal position on issues while criticizing or suppressing a conservative position. All in all, Alterman's fanciful hypothesis fails to convince. Try a more honest book, like 'Coloring the News' by McGowan.
Rating:
Summary: good read
Review: Eric Alterman has written a well-researched and thought- provoking book about the current state of corporate owned media and its affect on contemporary political thinking. The basic idea of a liberal media is rather silly given that the news media are owned and operated by large corporations who are interested in ad revenue, not the viewers or readers of news. Ratings and ad share determine what is newsworthy and in this climate, that benefits right wing thinking. If Bernie Goldberg thinks there is a great bias toward a left leaning media, he should do the honor of actually having foot-notes back up his claim. If Ann Coulter is interested in proving this also, she should not lie in her foot-notes (the Whatliberalmedia.com website has a great treatise of all her lies--do go there.) The right has become Mcarthy-like in its constant hammering on anything mildy left wing--that means ad reveune for Fox News, The NEw york Post, The American Spectator, etc. The right had done a great job convincing Americans that liberals are bad while taking all the middle classes' money. The more all the other networks and newpapers (what is left of them) need to move to the right ideologically, the more the progressive left gets demolished. The is not the way it is supposed to work. There used to be a notion that the ideas of the left and right would balance out in the mind of the reader, viewer and voter. When the media does the job of politico, democracy is in trouble. Alterman does a very good job exposing how the right has managed this impressive move (especially when he discusses the 2000 campaign and election. Also, he compares the amount of press Clinton got over whitewater with how little press Bush got with Harken oil)and he backs it all up with solid souces. I highly reccomend this book to all. John Shields
Rating: 
Summary: Has anyone actually *read* this book?
Review: From the reviews, it appears that everyone is simply responding either positively or negatively to this book based on its title. I'd suggest reading it alongside a book like _Bias_ or _Slander_ and see how it fares in contrast. First, Alterman complains early on (p. 6) that Goldberg's _Bias_ "never bothers to systematically prove the existence of liberal bias in the news, or even define what he means by that term." Interestingly, Alterman never tries to demonstrate that enterprise from his side of the table. He sometimes admits to a constitutional symathy with liberal views on the part of the mainstream media, but backs off on those claims and never explains how any sort of fair perspective might be managed. I think that Chapter 11, on Florida and the 2000 Presidential election, is the most revealing in this book. He explains in Chapter 10 that Al Gore's views on "abortion, affirmative action, Social Security, Medicare, tax policy, education, the environment, health care, prescription, and gun control" are all mainstrean points of view (p. 148). This is an an astonishing assertion, but one which reveals how Alterman wishes to draw his lines. He then uses the Florida election and legal battles to prove that the media isn't biased in favor of the left. While he wails against the injustice of the Supreme Court's resolution of the election, he claims that the media's culpability comes from its failure to support Gore in his legal challenges. If the media had a liberal bias, he claims, it would have been more supportive of Gore. Doesn't Alterman notice that, despite his self-avowed liberal perspective, he himself never has anything good to say about Gore's run for President or his handling of the Florida controversy? It's interesting that he fails to mention that his solution to the vote count would have explicitly violated Florida's election laws. It's also interesting to note that, despite his desire to honor the intent of Florida's voters, he never mentions that the major news outlets had mistakenly told the conservative voters in the panhandle that the polls were already closed an hour before they actually were. If any group of Florida voters has a claim to disenfranchisement, they do. The main value of Alterman's book is to take a peek into the mind of someone who thinks that NPR is a neutral news outlet (I heard him say this in an NPR interview; I couldn't find it in the book).
Rating:
Summary: "It's a Great Little Racket..."
Review: This little quote that follows pretty much sums up why Alterman's book is so valuable. Matt Labash, a senior writer for the conservative Weekly Standard, recently admitted the following: "We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective.... It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket." The right wing is getting mighty arrogant about their power in the media and shaping the discourse. They don't even bother to lie about it anymore. Alterman's book is a first crucial step in leveling the playing field--not in terms of liberal vs. conservative, but accuracy vs. falsehood, and democracy vs. plutocracy.
Rating:
Summary: Finally Some Truth !!!
Review: How refreshing !! Would someone please tell me who started the rumor that the media is slanted towards the left ??? I have worked for the media since the late 70's, and I can assure you all that the media is owned, operated & controlled by the corporate right-wingers. Most of the "free-thinkers" within the media are kept from voicing their opinions within earshot of the general public. How sad. The Republicans have truly poisoned our democracy.
Rating:
Summary: Reminds me of crossfire
Review: Take a look at FOX news or msnbc and you'll see some far right wing people all over the place. I haven't read the argument about too many liberals in the media, but I wonder how the media could be without being a little liberal in its outlook.... The Bush people aren't questioned nearly as much as they should be by those who deliver the news - why is that?
Rating:
Summary: Another desperate attempt by the left to obscure reality
Review: 'Large chunks of 'What Liberal Media?' are simply prose versions of those spider-webby diagrams purporting to expose a vast right-wing conspiracy. So-and-so gave money to think tank A, which gave a job to writer B, who penned an article for magazine C, which once got a grant from foundation D, etc. etc. etc. Attacking associations rather than actual public arguments is simply his attempt to discredit motives rather than argue facts. This is an old tradition of the left, going back to the 1930s when American communists would attack the motives of their accusers rather than the veracity of the accusation. "Conservatives have spent billions during the last three decades, both to pressure the mainstream media to move rightward and to create their own parallel media structure, which serves the same purpose as it provides an alternative viewpoint both to the faithful and the gullible," writes Mr. Alterman. But let's delve a bit further, as it is rare to find so few words crammed with so much disingenuousness. Sure, conservatives have built a parallel media structure. Why did conservatives feel a need to set up parallel media channels, with all the effort that entailed? Because the existing structures--elite newsrooms, plus the academic, publishing and entertainment industries that intertwine with the news business--are so hostile to conservative views that the only way to compete in the public debate was to set up shop across the street. Mr. Alterman's project isn't really to disprove that the media are liberal, but rather to move the already liberal media further to the left. He admits that "elite media reporting favors gun control, campaign finance reform, gay rights, and the environmental movement." Keep in mind that Eric Alterman is media critic for The Nation--a hysterically left-wing magazine dedicated to the proposition that corporate America, U.S. foreign policy, and the Republican Party are criminal, racist, or both. The simple reality is that, for him, the Democratic Party is far too conservative. But because Mr. Alterman and friends can't conceive of a media they would ever consider too liberal, they lament any rightward drift at all, and declare it dangerous and unwarranted. Moreover, they are highly selective in their gaze. Mr. Alterman looks to the handful of conservative media outlets and ignores the horde of liberal ones. He fulminates about the influence of the "wild men" at The Wall Street Journal editorial page, for instance, but barely mentions New York Times editorialists. Indeed, at times it seems Mr. Alterman has never even heard that the Times exists, let alone that it is both extremely liberal and more influential than any other news organ.
Mr. Alterman rails against the conservative perfidy of Fox News, yet sees little to no evidence that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC might be liberal. Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker, Harper's, NPR, etc. don't warrant much attention or worry. But he insists that the (vastly tinier) Weekly Standard has dangerous influence. He simply dismisses the proven fact that the vast majority of journalists admit they are liberal. When nine out of 10 reporters state in a survey that they voted for Bill Clinton, Mr. Alterman counters that Mr. Clinton wasn't very liberal, and that if he had run for president in, say, Belgium or Germany he'd be considered conservative.'
-Jonah Goldberg If the mainstream news media were really conservative, then why would every story be related to (needing more) health-care, prescription drugs, global warming, gun control, school vouchers being bad, racial preferences (affirmative action) are good, more welfare needed, abortion being good, tax cuts being bad, etc? Strange how the "conservative" media seems to advance a liberal position on issues while suppressing or criticizing a conservative.
| 
