Rating: 
Summary: delusional
Review: Sorry, Alterman, but I just don't buy it... Alterman is very good at making his point in this polically charged answer to Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias." However, it's hard to swallow his point of view with the overwhelming evidence of media bias that is directed to us every day. I really tried to read this book with an open mind as I have also read Goldberg's book. I wanted to hear the other side of the story as well. However, it became too humorous to do so. It's as if Alterman is so blind that he can't see past his own agenda. Media bias is so obvious that it's hard to comprehend how anyone could take this book too seriously. Of course he's going to argue that it's not liberally biased: he's a liberal himself! That's one of the reasons that I found Goldberg's book much more reliable. Goldberg is also a liberal, but he is also very honest about the liberal bias in the media. In the end, however, I suppose these types of books are very subjective. Subconsiously, can anyone one of us really have an opened mind on a particular subject? I think that most of the time, we have already made up our minds as to what we are going to believe. Being a conservative at heart, I am prone to think more conservatively on political issues. Whereas, someone with a more liberal leaning may come away with a totally different impression on the same book. It's what makes for an interesting world. Thank God, we're not all alike.
Rating:
Summary: A Scientific Approach.
Review: Mr. Alterman received kudos from the 4 & 5 star reviewers over his literary style and extensive research, whose minds were obviously already made up as to the thesis. They were, no doubt, from the 13% of the population who think there is a CONSERVATIVE bias rather than the 47% who think the bias is liberal. A case of preaching to the choir. Mr. Alterman starts with how he came up with the title before he even thought about writing a book. So much for the Scientific Method. He prefers conclusions first then research until you find supporting evidence. In this case the research must have still been difficult, because he had to interpret most of it with his own spin cycle. An example was that by the time he finished spinning the results of the poll that showed that 89% of the media voted for Clinton in 1992, he concluded that the poll really proved that the media had a conservative bias! He rejects Bernard Goldberg, his fellow liberal who wrote the book Bias, as not even having footnoted evidence. Waving off the fact that Goldberg was in the business for decades and only wrote about the sector with which he was experienced. In the rest of the book he sets up straw men then gleefully slays them, much like Samson slew the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, only in this case the ass used his own jawbone.
Rating: 
Summary: Wrong, but Right?
Review: I've tried to make sense of the claims of the nattering nabobs of negativity here but what else makes sense other than that this is probably the only book about media bias most of the reviewers have ever or will ever read? The claim of Liberal Media Bias isn't really intended to include op-ed talking (bobble?) heads of state like Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Savage, Hewitt, etc. I mean, I like Rush Limbaugh at times but it's a Red Herring Straw Man ignoratio elenchi kinda thing to finger him as counterweight to LMB. He's not a newsmember! OK, so maybe it should be called Liberal Newsmedia Bias. Umm, so what? If you read what any of these people were actually saying the media bias was you'd already know that. Read Goldberg's two books, Bias and Arrogance. Read them, at least! Please, oh scholars of the amazon.com. Anyway, the central thesis behind liberal media claims are now and always have been centered on the claim that our NEWS MEDIA are chartered solely to try to "objectively" present fact and logic. Inasmuch as half the terms in that sentence are deconstructible, non-epistemological terms we can ignore for the sake of dialogue, for the moment. It's as if, after 30 seconds of gorilla-logic cerebrating about Goldberg et al.'s claims a revelatory VH1 pop-up appeared in the minds of these MENSAs: Rush Limbaugh! Sean Hannity! Bill O'Reilly! Ann Coulter! Muahahahaha gotcha! Uh, not really. Nice try though. I'm not a conservative, if you must know, and niether do I think being one disqualifies one from making good points about media bias anyway. So, in review: Liberal Media Bias = Putatively-Objective-Newsmedia Bias. Get it? Yes, there are more conservative talk show hosts than liberal. Whoopdie doo. Nota bene the part about "talk show" read infotainment read editorialist read not presenting the facade of benign fact-giving. Spare me the conservative conglomerate magnate CEO trickle-down bias conspiracy theories. It just doesn't happen. You're going to have to trust me here. These companies serve the market for talk show listeners. And, despite all the frothy whimpering about this situation, MILLIONS of liberals listen to conservative talk show radio. Whose fault is that? Choose your media wisely is the lesson here. In short, I did read Alterman's book, and admire his eloquence, wit, and style, but like another reviewer said, he's all wet. Sorry, sport, but nice try. Like Hazlitt said about Keynes, all that is true about his theories is not new, and all that is new is not true. Gotcha.
Rating: 
Summary: Finally, the ammo I've been looking for
Review: "What Liberal Media?" is the book for those of us who are conviced of the lunacy of the charge of liberal media bias but who don't have the time to do the research ourselves. Alterman exposes the persistent silliness and paranoid wackiness of many of the right's loudest voices, including Limbaugh, Coulter and O'Reilley. The shock to me is realizing the degree to which the right has intimidated the center and left, which labor under the disability of having a conception of fairness to others than themselves. "WLM?" is frightening in its implications. By silencing the left and center, the right has set the nation on an ever-rightward course. I applaud Eric Alterman's courage in so carefully documenting his case, rather than just becoming a shrill voice on the left.
Rating:
Summary: Alterman is simply wrong
Review: Alterman writes a fine story, but is essentially wrong in his conclusion that there is not a liberal media. Evidence is mounting daily that shows that the MAINSTREAM media in America are liberal. Alterman essentially ignores evidence that contradicts his thesis. I recommend that you read Press Bias and Politics, by Jim Kuypers. Kuypers looks at 116 different mainstream papers and over 700 news articles dealing with homosexuality and race. His conclusions are the exact opposite of Alterman's, so readers interested in this subject ought to take a look and then make up their minds.
Rating:
Summary: LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS =MYTH
Review: Anyone who believes that there is a liberal media biased will hate this book. Why because the idea that the media is liberal is useful myth. Nothing more. Sure there are "liberal" newspapers but as a whole. The Media is not liberal. Think about it. 6 corporations own all of the major media outlets. No company can be more liberal than their owner. That said: let me say this: I was very exited to read this book because I've always believed that the so called liberal media bias was a myth. Alterman does a good job dissecting the mainstream media and proving that there really are more conservative commentators and pundits than liberal. The comparison isn't even close. The is especially obvious on the radio where liberal talk show host have gone the way of the dodo bird. The only drawback is that Alterman's analysis is so thorough that it makes for a tough, and often dry read. I've noticed that none of the negative reviewers can come up with e decent argument to refute Alterman's claims. Bottom line "What Liberal Media" dismantles the liberal media myth piece by piece, and exposes it for the fallacy that it is.
Rating:
Summary: The best book of 2003!
Review: Alterman's research is excellent, his reasoning is sound and his writing style keeps things moving right along. This is an essential book for the 2004 election year.
Rating:
Summary: OMG! THIS IS A TERRIBLE BOOK!!
Review: (...) Seriously, that is the bulk of the arguments that the negative reviewers are giving this book. How's this for a suggestion, READ THE BOOK! It really is a thouroughly researched, well thought out look at our press, how it works, and how the right has been working it.
Rating: 
Summary: media is so libbberralll
Review: Well lets see what has the media said to us in the last ten years or so about presidents and politics.The entire media including the New York Times called whitewater a "scandal"(when it was nothing).The media turned the firing of their cronies at the travel office into another so called scandal.In 1998 they went into a year long frenzy about Monica Lewinsky neglecting to mention that a long list of republicans were adulterers. The media awarded the presidential election of 2000 to Bush, and said he was elected fairly. Following their choice getting in power they then attacked Clinton about Mark Rich as well as Hillary,etc. After 9/11 they urged americans to rally round the republicans. They backed Bush in his war on Iraq, celebrated the toppling of Saddam's statue, forgot that the reason for war was lies about WMD. Finally when Saddam was captured that lead all objective reporters to say Bush is triumphant. Meanwhile Joe Wilson has been forgotten about as have the WMD pretext for going to war, and nothing was mentioned in the media about the Kurds being the ones who captured Saddam. So the media has a liberal bias.
Rating: 
Summary: Only "The Nation" is Liberal in Alterman's flawed book.
Review: My biggest criticism of Alterman is that only himself and The Nation magazine are worthy to be considered liberal. Everthing else is SCLM "The so-called liberal media". Mother Jones and Progressive magazines are not even mentioned in Alterman's book. Is this because Alterman works for The Nation? Are they part of the SCLM?
Bill Maher and Michael Moore are dismissed in one line as clowns but surely they are neither SCLM nor obscure. Noam Chomsky isn't even mentioned, even though his anti-American screeds fill bookshelves.
Alterman's is brilliant in his attacks on The New Republic magazine (TNR). [I'd be interested if Alterman has as much distain for Howell Raines and the NYT's role in the Jayson Blair scandal as he does for the late Michael Kelly and TNR in the Stephen Glass affair.] Alterman points out how TNR is patronized by conservatives who use the phrase "Even the New Republic says'" in their columns. Alterman is good at picking on pundits Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity but his critique of Rush Limbaugh is petty (something about believing in the Apocalypse or Satan). He never dissects what Limbaugh's appeal is or why he is so popular.
Alterman's bias and selective ignoring of facts that don't support what he believes are very apparent when he rants about Bush's victory in 2000. The Gore legal team is dismissed as inferior and amateurish despite the inclusion of Lawrence Tribe and David Boies (the "reincarnation of Clarence Darrow" after the Microsoft victory). Alterman ignores the pro-Gore Florida Supreme Court's ex post facto decisions to twice extend the hand count deadline because it runs counter to his conspiracy theories. Sour grapes, not right wing bias, is behind Alterman's anger at Bush's triumph.
|
