Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book vaporizes liberal media myth
Review: Balance in news media is among the most imporant issues currently facing the US. Alterman's book is excellently written, well-researched, and provides a significant analysis of the media. Once Alterman has finished dismantling the liberal media myth, it lies in pieces, ready for the scrap heap of history. One hopes that the book serves notice to America's media that their game is up -- they must return to greater balance and fairer coverage of the news.
Rating: 
Summary: Give me a break!
Review: I can't believe this! The author is so liberal, that he does not even see the liberal bias in the media. I don't want to debate the author, but just look at CNN, MSNBC and don't forget the 3 majors...ABC, NBC and CBS. They never tell you both sides of the story. The only news network I have seen that comes close is the Fox News Channel. If you live in the Liberal/Socialist dream world, then this is the book for you. If you have any common sense and can think for yourself, you will see right through this.
Rating: 
Summary: What did feminism ever do to you? Part II
Review: ON SCAIFE, ORGANIZATION AND PRESENTATION
Where it succeeds a little more is in the discussion on Richard Mellon Scaife. But here too there's another reason to complain.
When you're making a case, you make a case. To make a strong one, you don't just toss out various facts, you organize them and your organize your presentation of them.
Here, we move from a discussion on who owns the media to a discussion on Scaife with nothing but a tiny line of seperation. No headers, nothing to make the presentation attractive, let alone organized. (And what is the focus of this chapter before it turns to Rupert Murdoch and then Scaife? The assembly of the early parts of this chapter are at best "informal.")
Recent works that make strong cases do a far better job of organizing their sections in terms of appearence. Alan Dershowitz's Supreme Injustice uses bold type to divide up various focal points. Vincent Bugliosi's The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President uses bold type and spacing which allow the reader to track each aspect of the argument.
Falling back to 1991, we can find the best model for dividing sections and organizing in Susan Faludi's excellent book Backlash. Backlash also deals with "accepted" media myths and proves them wrong. But Faludi's headings and subheadings don't just allow the reader's eyes to follow her case better, they also helps her stay organized and on topic. (Faludi's Stiffed relied less on this manner of presentation and while still a worthy read, Faludi's case would have been stronger had she stuck to the earlier visual and organizational arrangement/style.)
Without a strong sense of sections, Alterman's chapter writings often appear to have little organization and little focus. Faludi organzied her chapters around the various outlets that endorsed and created mistaken myths. From there, she sub-divided the chapters. Whether it's Alterman's mistaken comments on abortion, his discussion on Scaife, his examination of various
pundits and news persons, everything bleeds into one another.
Sub-divide and organize, it's pretty simple. And it improves the reading experience for the reader. As it is, the best portions of the book for this reader were the introduction, the chapter on the election of 2000 and the chapter revolving strictly on the Florida recounts. In those three sections, Alterman's anger and sarchasm make for entertaining reading.Throughout the rest of the book, he seems to be attempting to be more evenly modulated and more "serious."
Let's comment on three chapters. As noted above, Alterman does a chapter on the 2000 election (which reminds me a great deal, though less hard hitting, of a feature Rolling Stone ran outlining the prejudice against Gore by the mainstream media). This chapter is twenty-seven pages. The chapter on the Florida controversy (an admitted important event in our nation's history) weighs in at seventeen pages. And a chapter entitled "The Clinton Administration" is only nine pages. This administration lasted eight years, the chapter on it is nine pages -- as opposed to twenty-seven or seventeen.
To be fair to Alterman, he jumps around constantly and aspects of events that occurred during the eight year administration pop up frequently in other chapters. But again, in the chapter proper: eight years, nine pages. So let me state again this book suffers from a lack of organization and organizing principals.
Alterman's not a bad writer. I visit his site often (three times in the last week). But online, he divides his writing up into sections with headings, he organizes. His decision not to do so in this book was a wrong one.
ON RATING THE BOOK
So the book's badly organized, so what? Isn't it at worth least
three star? Not to this reviewer. For me, a five star rating equals a classic. A four star reading means there are certain small problems (sometimes to do with organization) but it's still worthwhile. Three stars means wait for the paperback edition because it's not worth forking over hard cover money. Two stars means pick up at your local library if you're interested in the topic. (One star, is of course the lowest amazon.com lets you go. For me, one star means ignore and avoid at all costs.)
This is a pick-it-up-at-your-local-library book (and when you do make sure you read his end notes because there's worthwhile information to be gained there). The organization is sloppy. That made the book less accessible, but it didn't turn me against the book.
Rating:
Summary: What did feminism ever do to you? Part I
Review: Eric Alterman, thank you for writing this book. It's more or less a given that I have to say thank you here -- this book's recommended on the majority of web sites I count on for news.
What Liberal Media? is supposed to be THE BOOK on the the myth of the liberal media bias.
The myth is a myth and this could have been a highly enjoyable book (educational, enlightening and entertaining) that dispelled the notion that liberal activists control the mainstream media.
It's not such a book; however, in it's own misguided way, it does prove the case that no liberal media bias exists -- certainly not within the opinions of admitted non-conservative Alterman.
This book has been pushed by some web sites as the response to Ann Coulter's Slander and there's a great deal of talk encouraging people to go out and buy What Liberal Media? and push it to the top of the best selling books chart. We're being urged to rush to online and traditional stores and snatch this book up. Remember this is supposed to be THE BOOK.
ON BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN, LILY TOMLIN AND INFORMATION
Here it might do well to remember some words from Bruce Springsteen's spoken preface to "War" (found on the boxed set Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band Live/1975-85).
Springsteen: "And uh, the next time they're going to be looking at you and you're going to need a lot of information to know what you're gonna wanna do because in 1985 blind faith in your leaders or in anything will get you killed." Why quote Springsteen to begin with? Well the author's written a previous book on Springsteen and in his preface (p. xiii) he draws the comparison/conclusion that his agent "is to agents what the E Street Band is to rock and roll." So maybe Springsteen's words will convey better (to Alterman) what's wrong with this book and the push behind it. No, it's not 1985. No, blind faith in this book won't get you killed. But as Springsteen points out, we do need lots of information.
One does get a lot of information in this book, if not ALL the information. Alterman documents a few, of the many, cases where consolidation has led to our current state of apathy in the mainstream media. And he's correct that corporate control of the media has stifled discussion in the media.
That's really not surprising. Years ago, after the character of Ernestine debuted and became popular on the television show Laugh In, Lily Tomlin noted that she'd tried earlier (on another network) to get Ernestine on the air. She'd taped a sketch for the show The Music Scene but "[t]he ABC censors took it off; they didn't want to offend the phone company. Big corporations look after one another."
Alterman's comments don't really deepen the discussion much further. At various sites online, you can find numerous stories (and charts -- this section of the book would have been helped with a visual) outling how changes in the FCC have led to media consolidation and the stifling of discourse. And these sites document it far better. So this section of the book basically provides you with facts that most readers urged to buy this book already know full well (and in far more detail).
Rating:
Summary: Intelligent, insightful, and meticulously researched
Review: No myth in American political life has a more successful and less founded life than what Eric Alterman calls the myth of the So-Call Liberal Media (SCLM). That myth is the subject of this exceptionally researched, well-documented, and articulately written book. Unfortunately--though I hope I am wrong--the myth is so well entrenched at this point that I fear that this book will not get nearly the attention that such wretchedly written screes as Ann Coulter's SLANDER (the most ironically titled book in publishing history, given its rampant disregard of facts) and Goldberg's BIAS (with his bizarre obsession with Dan Rather and scant concrete documentation). Alterman examines charges of liberal bias in the media in two ways. First, he looks at charges of liberal bias in specific media. For instance, he examines television, print journalists, radio and the Internet, and contemporary intellectual life. In all these, with varying degrees, he finds instead of a liberal bias, a very strong conservative bias, especially in newspapers, radio, and television. He then goes on to examine charges of liberal bias in covering a variety of topics. He discusses charges of social and economic bias, before going go to analyze the media's coverage of the Clinton administration, the 2000 election, the Florida recount, and George W. Bush. One of the more surprising things that Alterman shows is the fact that a large number of conservative members of the media understand that the myth of the liberal media is utterly false. He also shows many of the reasons the Right has been so successful in promulgating this myth. One reason is clearly the conservative tilt of many of the media moguls. The hyper conservative Rupert Murdoch, for instance, owns Fox News, the Weekly Standard, and the New York Post, three bastions for an ultra right wing reporting of the news. Given the fact that reporting the news is big business, and big business is almost uniformly conservative, it is not surprising that almost all the broadcast media is not only not willing to report any story from a liberal perspective but also hesitant to run any story the least bit critical of the Right. This was the most depressing part of the book for me, because it engendered in me a fear that his is not a temporary, but a permanent situation. With the reporting of the news more and more in the hands of only a few news moguls, all of them conservative if not reactionary, will we ever see a time where a balanced perspective on current events is the norm? My lone complaint with the book is his failure to provide an historical analysis of the claim of liberal bias. While I completely agree that any claim that the media today is biased towards the left laughably absurd, I would have liked some analysis of whether that was ever a credible charge. The stereotype is that the New York Times and Washington Post are heavily skewed towards a liberal perspective. With supposed liberals like the hawkish Thomas Friedman beating the war drums against Iraq, and the New York Times editorial pages filled with conservatives (the only person I see consistently writing from a liberal perspective there is Paul Krugman, although Maureen Dowd frequently writes from a liberal position), I am not sure how any reasonable person could continue to hold that position. But was it true in 1968? Was it ever true? I would have liked a bit more discussion of this aspect. Apart from that small cavil, this is an absolutely first rate book. Hopefully it will occasion some public outcry about the lack of balance in the media today.
Rating:
Summary: Author Eric Alterman has credibility issues!
Review: Recently on CNN's Crossfire, Tucker Carlson quoted Eric Alterman directly: "The vast majority [of reporters] are pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro separation of church and state, pro-feminism, pro-affirmative action, and...supportive of gay rights." Having openly conceded the existence of a liberal bias, how does Alterman now publish a book denying it? He relies upon a tired, unsupported, leftist cliche: "While I admit and agree that most elite reporters are socially liberal," he states on national TV, "it's not up to reporters what gets on the news." That's being decided by, he claimed ominously, "the owners." These gatekeepers only let you know what they want you to know--nevermind that most Americans don't rely on news sources, anyway. Leaving us with precisely what claim? Alterman believes that there is no liberal media bias, except that reporters are liberal on social issues, not economic ones. Yet this matters not one whit because Big Media's "owners" are really reporting the news. The major links in his chain of argument, however, go unsubstantiated. In fact, most reporters explicitly deny what he would have you believe, i.e., that newswriters and reporters aren't responsible for what they report! Their proclaimed autonomy amounts to "false consciousness." Capitalist owners are really responsible; reporters are simply tools for perpetuating a system of false consciouness.
Rating:
Summary: A thorough dismantling of a stubborn myth
Review: This book is reasonable, well-presented and filled with detailed, footnoted facts that, together, demolish the myth of the liberal media. Alterman's takes on on the likes of Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Goldberg and the rest of the right-wing victim class are on target and devastating. Of course, since -- as laid out neatly by Alterman -- the media is deeply in the pockets of multi-national coporations to whom liberalism is anathema, expect this book to be attacked mercilessly. No matter -- the truth wins out. Required reading.
Rating:
Summary: Thorough, readable, fascinating
Review: It's odd that there even *needs* to be a book like this. Might as well write "How do we know the sky is blue?" But Alterman dutifully walks the reader through the vast mountain of evidence in favor of his hypothesis. Provided you pay attention to the media in some form, you can't help but be fascinated by a comparison of how certain issues are treated. The ridiculous claims of conservative bias have now caused the media to bend over so far backwards so as to grant credibility to some outrageous views. "President Bush said today that the sky is magenta. Around the world, a broad majority of scientists disagree. But some experts agree with Mr. Bush, and so the debate rages on." Alterman has many excellent examples of this. Alterman's most important point, I think, is that the media has abandoned its role to objectively determine the credibility of an argument or a fact. Characters like Ann Coulter are given equal footing with serious commentators (such as Alterman) reporting facts and opinions in a respectful and informative fashion. Is this abandonment a result of societal pressure (from below) or editorial pressure (from the corporate owners above)? Read the book for Alterman's answer! This book is a gem, and it is unlikely to have large well-financed conservative outfits boosting sales figures like some others currently on the bestseller lists, so give Alterman a hand and buy his book. Encourage more thoughtful books like it.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth Finally Comes Out!
Review: After years of hearing the common conservative lie that the media is liberal and biased, finally someone seeks to prove that the media leans right. For the last two years the press has been scared to criticize the President, yet we are supposed to believe these people are pushing a liberal agenda? CNN has survey questions which ask not whether we should attack Iraq, but whether it is Anti-American to question the War. This is our liberal media? Conservative outrages are never covered (Rummy saying drafted soldiers added no value to the Vietnam War, Ann Coulter calling for a terrorist bombing of the NY Times, W supposedly helping to fight AIDS in Africa while ending funding for a UN program whiched provided condoms to Africa) by the media in this country, yet conservative pundits have the audacity to claim the media is liberal. This book was desperately needed to begin setting the record straight.
Rating: 
Summary: A Welcome antidote to Conservative Persecution Fantasies
Review: This new book is a welcome counterargument to the oft repeated conservative fantasy that they are somehow persecuted by a liberal-biased media. Alterman offers a readable and savage critique of the rise of conservative polit6ical pundits. he does a pretty good job of showing that the opposite is in fact true: through a combination of liberal meekness, corporate control, conservative showmanship, and journalists fear of bias allowed the rise of a media punditry that is largely right oriented and offers few strong liberal voices. Unfortunately this book will probably not change any minds. The people disposed to believe Altermans arguement likely already believe it and the people who need to hear his argument are probably unlikely to pick up the book and if they do they are likely to only do so so they can counter the latest arguments of the "Liberal dominated Media". Altermans case is not helped by the fact that he falls into some of the same traps as the conservatives he condemns: he often argues by anecdotes which, while apparently true, aren't necesarilly so. He often uses dogmatic language designed to reinfroce existing beliefs rather than convince people. He sometimes leaves arguments unsupported, and in his zeal to "get" the conservative demogogues he sometimes resorts to ad hominem attacks (he criticizes both Laura Ingraham and Anne Coulter for wearing revealing clothes, a fact which has nothing to do with the utter fallacy of their political thinking). Ironically "What Liberal Media" will probably, like "Blinded By the Right", be dismissed as part of the very liberla media eltie that the book seeks to debunk.
|
