Rating: 
Summary: Maybe You Ought to Be Paying Attention
Review: "A Reader from Seattle," who couldn't be bothered to use his real name, wrote:> This is not fact, he comes up with numbers
> and percentages that are incorrect, at one
> point he accually says that Al Gore did
> invent the internet and that the media tried
> to mar this. He is assuming all his readers
> are uneducated or just not paying attention. I saw Alterman on The Daily Show (as "A Reader") did, but I was paying attention. Alterman didn't say that Gore invented the Internet, he used the myth of Gore inventing the Internet as an example of how the media (sometimes willfully) gets things wrong. I haven't read Alterman's book yet, but I can't wait to do so. I fear, as others have mentioned, that the only people who will read it are people who already believe Alterman's central thesis. Still, it's true that as long as a book like this is out there, there is the chance someone will read it and have his or her mind changed. Here's hoping.
Rating: 
Summary: What a disappointment!
Review: Basically all he bemoans is the marginalization of the hard left. Mostly a hypocritically slandering polemic.
Rating:
Summary: A liberal columnist can't get it right
Review: This book is a weak attempt to disprove the obvious. Alterman's liberal bias shows through completely. I notice he didn't mention Dan Rather, who is definitely a liberally biased newscaster. ... This book is just another laughable attempt to give life to the silly notion of a vast right wing conspiracy. Alterman doesn't even mention interviewing techniques. Liberal newscasters and morning show hosts always give softball questions to liberals they interview, but are always confrontational to republicans and conservatives. But, addressing this fact would repudiate the thesis of his book, wouldn't it? Save your money.
Rating:
Summary: New York Times endorses via a left-wing establsihment icon!
Review: As former editor of The New Republic, Andrew Sullivan, notes on March 20th, 2003 at his blogsite: "The Rainesians get the dean of Berkeley Journalism School, a contributor to the Nation, Salon, the New Yorker, and the New York Review of Books, to endorse a book endorsing the notion that there's no liberal bias in the media. And they don't even seem to notice the irony." And the monkeys screamed "We know we know nothing," and don't notice the self-contradiction. How priceless!
Rating: 
Summary: The Media Failed Again - All Bias Is Misleading
Review: It's not the bias but the examination that is important. This book by Alterman is an important book at an important time. (Here we go again--another.) The significance is the examination of the media: producers, writers, journalists, editors and reporters. The majority of Americans get their information via the electronic media today (unfortunately). And then, some additional info. from the print media via their newspaper. This book is in large-part a response to Bernard Goldberg's book and his tour, which received lots of attention and scrutiny. Goldberg was objective, truthful, and candid. It seems the recent growth of conservative television and radio was a response to the (correct assertion) that the mainstream media was liberally biased. On average, 79% of newspaper reporters vote for Democratic Presidents in national elections. One can research unlimited stories over decades to see the left-wing spin on articles in newspapers and television reporting. The recent conservative programs are a response to the common perception of a dominant liberally-biased media. These conservatives are more direct, confrontational (in a debating sense), and more open about where they specifically stand on issues. This strikes a chord among some liberals and left-wingers. In contrast to the right-leaning media outlets, the left-leaning mainstream media is less direct, more subtle, and uses tilted language to spin a story. This subtlety and tilt, is often not intentional. It's just the natural expression of the viewpoint of the people covering the story. Yet because it is a bias of course, it is not good reporting. A person's perception is their reality. Reporters are human. I've often scoffed at the headlines that are chosen for a particular a story in many newspapers. The headline influences the way people immediately perceive a particular story, policy, or action. An example of a liberal newspaper that is unbelievably biased, but is so subtle it significantly influences the publics' perception of a story is in Seattle. "The Seattle Post-Intelligencer" may be the worst case I've witnessed, among several large-city dailies. In the end this book doesn't offer an honest look at the people who don't do their jobs: journalists and reporters. Alterman and many other journalists should examine all forms of bias, not just bias of a particular bent. We won't see that happening. Read this book chapter by chapter, simultaneously with Goldberg's. Again, instead of exchanging the impish bickering between the shallow left and right, the professionals should focus on what their job is: report the occurrences of our society in an objective, unemotional, and unbiased manner. Unfortunately, they haven't realized that yet.
Rating:
Summary: Poor Eric's Poorer Almanack
Review: This is a type of book that needs to be written, for although most of the liberal media bias is quite evident, even conservatives have had to admit they've been inflating the claims in recent years to make political hay. The book purports to be a cogent and factual refutation of the claims of Goldberg, O'Rourke, et. al., and even tries to prove that there is not only no liberal bias, but there is a conservative bias in the media. Eric Alterman, that snide bane of the political right, fails to make the case, and he fails miserably. It isn't long before you realize that this tome is miles wide but only an inch deep. As an example of his contention that conservatives exercise immense media power: In October 2001, ABC News President David Westin told a Columbia Journalism School class that he had "no opinion" whether the Pentagon was a legitimate target for attack by America's enemies. Many people objected to this remark, and Westin apologized. Alterman says he found this "capitulation dispiriting."... I don't know about you, but that hardly qualifies as an stunning example supporting Alterman's thesis, yet that is pretty much the way it goes in this weak little book: lots of build-up to "stunning revelations," only to be followed by tepid and inconclusive evidence. In the end, I found this book to be hardly worth the price, and certainly a failure in its mission to expose "The Truth About Bias and the News." In fact, it actually ccomplishes the opposite of its stated goals: by providing scant evidence for its assertions, it will confirm for many that there IS a liberal bias in the media, if for no other reason than it appears Alterman offers few details of a "vast right wing conspiracy" - mainly because he can't.
Rating:
Summary: Opinion wrapped in fact
Review: I read Mr.Alterman's book and was humored by his observations and opinions, then last night I saw him on a comedy talk show claiming that his book was fact, he then wnet on to spout anti-American propiganda, he got so far off base that even the liberal host stopped him and thanked him for his "opinion". "Its not opinion, its fact" Alterman cried. After seeing this I was disgusted, Mr.Alterman wrapped all is opinions in this book and slapped a cover on it, claiming it as 'fact'. This is not fact, he comes up with numbers and percentages that are incorrect, at one point he accually says that Al Gore did invent the internet and that the media tried to mar this. He is assuming all his readers are uneducated or just not paying attention.
Rating:
Summary: Hypocricy and Duplicity
Review: Eric, turn on you television before you right a book about liberal media bias. Here is one example of that unambiguous bias. Source: www.....org At least 18 nations are part of the coalition taking on Iraq, but during ABC's two-and-a-half hour long prime time special Monday night after President Bush's speech, Peter Jennings repeatedly asked about the cost of the U.S. "going it alone." At about 9:15pm EST/8:15pm CST during the special, titled "When Diplomacy Fails," which began at 8:27pm EST and droned on to 11pm EST, Jennings interviewed Professor Fawaz Gerges of Sara Lawrence College, who is also an ABC News consultant, and Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria. "Before I get to the consequences of going alone," Jennings began with Gerges before posing an unrelated question. Turning to Zakaria, Jennings wondered: "You're a journalist who's also a historian. Can you recall a time when the United States has been quite so alone?" You call 18 willing nations (now 34) going it alone? Friends, do not diminish your intelligence any further! Increase your intelligence and read Ann Coulter's book SLANDER.
Rating:
Summary: If searching for facts this is A Disappointment
Review: As a moderate with no party affiliation I have often been intrigued by the claims of the radical right that there is a Liberal media conspiracy. I was interested in examining the other side of the issue but this book is guilty of what it claims the extreme media such as Rush Lindebaum do. In short it argues from emotion and biased. The author had an opportunity to he intellectually honest and discuss facts with his readers but instead spent his time bashing the other side. All the rhetoric bores me on my fact-finding mission. I continue to believe that those standing on polar extremes do so because of a desire to win and wield power rather than search for truth.
Rating: 
Summary: EXCELLENT handling of the liberal media issue
Review: FINALLY someone has correctly researched the issue of the 'lliberal media' that the conservative talkers would have you believe is out to crucify him. Alterman's WELL-RESEARCHED and succinct book will shed much needed light on this issue. It's almost like the 'Ann-Ti coulter' book. Alterman doesn't reduce himself to the snide attacks and name calling found in some of the more recent books on thus subject, and it's a breath of fresh air. He also doesn't bring the flaming liberalism that Michael Moore can bring, which can often cause Moore to be dismissed based on his extreme views. Alterman has done a masterful job at dissecting this very complex issue and allows the facts to speak for themselves. This book shouldn't be missed, because it's thought provoking, topical, and very well-written.
| 
