Rating: 
Summary: A radical liberal rant
Review: Alterman seems to have zero understanding of the difference between commentators, journalists and newscasters. Is Limbaugh conservative? Well, last time I checked he was. Does he pretend to be a newscaster? Never.
Did the publisher of the New York Times say he would rather see an American soldier die in a fight with a Communist in Viet Nam? Yes he did and has never denied it. Does that make him one the the conservative elites who control the media? I don't think so.
Alterman's book is a classic example of left-wing writers who just "don't get it." He thinks he is "mainstream" when the radical journals he writes for wouldn't hire a conservative if their lives depended on it.
This book is good fantasy for his fellow travelers, but is pure garbage when it comes to telling "The Truth."
Save your money.
Rating:
Summary: Alterman also called Louis Farrakhan "conservative," too.
Review: Alterman does a brilliant job of proving that the mainstream media doesn't lean as far to the left as he does. However, that's not the same as proving that the media doesn't lean to the left at all.Alterman is so far to the left that one morning a few years ago on CSPAN's "Washington Journal," he actually had the gall to say -- and with a straight face -- that Louis Farrakhan is a "conservative." Anyone who does that obviously doesn't know what "liberal," "conservative," "left," and "right" really mean.
Rating:
Summary: Ridiculous and Foolish
Review: Words fail...you would have to be deaf, blind and dumb (stupid?) to miss the liberal bias in the media. "Flyover country" is sick of it.
Rating:
Summary: Didn't make his case
Review: Full of accusations, but nothing to back them up. He just sounds like he woke up on the wrong side of the bed. He would have been more credible if he would have admitted liberal bias, and then tried to make it sound justified.
Rating: 
Summary: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Review: At last, someone has shown, and documented, that the so-called liberal media bias is really part of a right wing conspiracy. Alterman's book is the perfect antidote to Bernard Goldberg's anecdotal book on his life at CBS. But Goldberg's book compares to Alterman's in the same way a high school essay on 'How I spent my summer vacation' is comparable to a Ph.D. thesis. Because of its scholarly style, Alterman's book is not an easy read, but it is well worth the effort. While Alterman has his own biases, prejudices and conflicts, he articulates them (or so it appears) so readers can make a judgment of where they should apply grains of salt. His work should put to rest the claim that American journalism is influenced by a liberal bias. But, alas, it will not because those bent on perpetuating this myth are not interested in the facts.
Rating:
Summary: Must read for Liberals and Conservatives
Review: While reviews of "What Liberal Media" act as a looking glass at the political leanings of the reviewer rather than Alterman's views I urge both liberals and conservatives to read this book. Alterman depicts the right-wing organizations funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife which have worked to create a base of biased editorialists and reporters who are interested in furthering the causes of their patron. These journalists see themselves as part of a movement as opposed to liberal journalists who have been educated towards 'objectivity' and attempt to explain the world not necessarily change it. Alterman dismantles Goldberg's thesis of liberal bias in the media. Goldberg admits that there is no research to back his claim that conservatives are more frequently than liberals labeled for their politics. To understand the dynamics of the press you should get this book. Alterman is not a polemicist and is trying to get to the bottom of this issue. This contrasts with Coulter's bomb throwing and Goldberg's vendetta with Dan Rather.
Rating:
Summary: the conservative right wing media is taking over
Review: Alterman exposes how the religious right and it's Fox News allies are taking over mainstream media by fear and intimidation.
Rating: 
Summary: You'll either say "Amen!" or "No Way!"
Review: This book has mostly gotten 1 or 5 stars, depending on the political stances the reviewer. In the interest of neutrality, I give 3 stars. The sad fact is that there's no point in writing a book like this. Liberals will all say "See? I told you so!" Conservatives will dismiss it as liberal propaganda. In such a closed-minded environment, writing this book is an exercise in futility. Indeed, he opens the book by saying (paraphrase) "Only a liberal would be stupid enough to write a book saying there's no liberal bias in the media." Overall, the book is exceedingly well-documented. For the most part the presentation is balanced. He willingly concedes that on certain matters there is a slight liberal bias (e.g. general social attitudes of reporters) but goes on to argue (with supporting evidence) that reporters at least try to correct for their bias. He argues that vigilance and conscientious reporting are better corrections than flooding the airwaves with firebrands like Ann Coulter. He rightly concedes that there ARE liberal "talking heads" and columnists out there, but also points out that there are plenty of conservative "talking heads." Moreover, there's a big difference between the front page and the editorial page, reporting vs. commentary. My biggest problem is that when critiquing the coverage of certain issues (e.g. the Florida recount) he injects his own liberal biases. It's good that he lays his cards on the table, but it would be better to simply say "In the interest of full disclosure I believe that..." and then go on to "this source said..." vs. "that source said" and try to argue that there was no liberal slant to what was being said in the media. However, he will say "The media so often reports [insert something more conservative than what Alterman thinks here] when the truth is [insert his liberal view here]." Although he still devotes most of his writing to an analysis of the coverage rather than the issue, he injects his own views more than is necessary. He undermines the (correct) point that he's trying to make. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a moderate Libertarian who thinks Democrats are (usually) the lesser evil. I think Republicans have learned all the wrong lessons from Democrats: Victimhood, self-pity, and the conviction that "the establishment" is stacked against them. Republicans railing against the liberal media are even more annoying than college students majoring in "ethnic studies" or "gender studies", and every bit as obsessed with victimhood. Anyway, I think he makes a good case, but it really won't matter, because those who already agree need no convincing, and those who don't agree never will.
Rating:
Summary: Paper is a terrible thing to waste
Review: Eric Alterman's book is premised on three core arguments: 1) The media are biased toward the political right, not left, because they do not present the political views of Eric Alterman as the moderate norm. Mr. Alterman writes for "Mother Jones," "The Village Voice," et al. (This is the main argument.) 2) It is not possible for the media to be biased toward the political left, because multi-millionaires and billionaires own or run most media outlets. People with that kind of money are politically right-wing regardless of their goals, actions, opinions, policies, or politics. After all, if Karl Marx taught us anything, it was that one's economic position determines one's politics. Ted Kennedy and about a zillion other pink multimillionaires are excepted from this class analysis because, after all, they are unbiased and well-intentioned normal people. 3) Right-wing commentators and their millions of grass-roots fans outside the normal media channels are enemies of the masses and of the proper authority. They should be silenced for the health of the volk because they are fascists as well as emotional a- holes who substitute name-calling for analysis! You may regard this review as a precis of the book, and save your money; for the rest of the book is footnotes and filler.
Rating:
Summary: Alterman's arguments don't hold up
Review: Just because the mass of network and national news and magazine journalists are not foaming 1930s socialists like Alterman is, does not mean they don't have a liberal slant. Alterman, naturally, cannot see this distinction.
This is Goldberg's point in "Bias":
That non-opinion journalists stew in a liberal juice that permeates their entire outlook, so that they don't know when their being biased. If you think Stalin is still getting a bad rap from the "conservative" media, then you'll like this book.
| 
