Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant
Review: This book will forever alter how you view newspares, radio and television "news reporting." Eric Alterman has produced a book that should be required reading for every conservative who complains about the "liberal media." This book explodes that myth and with meticulous detail (and cites sources) shows how conservatives have successfully cowed reporters into a reporting stance that is more conservative than liberal. Fascinating and frustrating -- a must read for anyone truly concerned about how our system of government is being affected by the media.
Rating:
Summary: Anyone who gives this one star...
Review: falls into one of several categories: 1. Illiterate (because they obviously didn't read the book and must be attacking it based on an opinion or belief that they learned from someone else) 2. Hater (street term for someone who needs to put down others in a vain, misguided attempt to create a sense of self-worth) 3. ....
Okay, I was wrong, there are only two categories.
Rating: 
Summary: GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!
Review: yEAH RIGHT. THE LIBERAL LIARS ARE LYING AGAIN!!!! AL FRANKLIN GOES ON THE tv and says that only the people that agree with him should be allowed to live in America. GUESS WHAT STUPID? YOU ARE A TRAITER.
Rating:
Summary: A completely wasted premise
Review: Alterman has asked the wrong question. He has forgotten the original meaning of "Is the media biased?" and lumped every thing written, said or shown into his measuring cup. That hardly makes him unbiased. It's not even rational. Of course the media is biased! Everybody knows that. Nor do I care which way it's biased. My concern is the loss of distinction between news and editorial content.In the beginning, the phrase "media bias" questioned news reporting, not editorial writing. The NYT is free to say what they wish in their editorials and Rush Limbaugh has every right to slant his choice of topics and quotations. Are editorial comments biased? Of course they are! And rightly so. The real issue is with news reporters and their choice of material and words. There is an implication of non-bias when "NBC Nightly News" or similarly high-sounding program, dishes out "facts." Along those lines, it is extremely unfortunate that Fox has chosen to name their entire cable/satellite channel the "Fox News Channel." So what is the function of a news reporter? Where are the rules that govern their choice of material, their terminology, indeed their attitude? I submit that today there are no rules at all. Certainly the news departments of the major networks have no posted policies. The phrase "All the News That's Fit to Print" is truly laughable because it presumes they can make that judgment without offering an objective way for us to measure them. Other reviews here have said that the function of newscasters is to "question authority." That's absurd. Even if it were possible to do so objectively, which it is not, their job is absolutely NOT to question authority. Their job is to question themselves. "Have we presented the facts without letting our own opinions slip in? Most importantly, it's not "I," it's "we." Unfortunately, the public is lead to believe that newscasts are no longer professionally composed by a staff, they are presented as though individuals like Peter Jennings or Walter Cronkite did all this work alone and they, because of long involvement with the "news," have a perspective on this situation that we poor listeners can't possibly have. It's a "star" system plus a little help from talking heads in the field. It's a short slide from that attitude to sloppy reporting that abuses the audience. "Critics say" or "the Pentagon says" cannot possibly be called news. It's an insult to my intelligence to believe I don't want supporting facts. If they are too lazy to interview people or reference sources, why should they say anything at all? And if they can be THAT sloppy, where do I go to discover what they left out entirely? Mr. Alterman, you have added nothing to the knowledge of the world. We already knew you were politically motivated. Why tell us again? If you want to contribute something, offer a solution to the real problem which is too many editorials and hardly any "news" at all.
Rating:
Summary: My two cents
Review: Just a clarification - Talk radio is not news, it's entertainment. Radio hosts live for ratings and sponsors. One thing to keep in mind is that talk radio is biased. And that's okay. If you don't like what Rush says, change the channel. But understand, almost all of the talk radio hosts know (and sometimes admit) that they are biased. At heart, they are entertainers. The problem is when Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw or other "journalists" who by definition should be fair and objective are not objective or fair. Our news is supposed to be unbiased. Talk radio hosts are not journalists. They are entertainers, they love stirring up controversy. We should not expect a fair and balanced point of view. Ever. And that's okay, change the channel or call them up and give em a piece of your mind. We should never confuse entertainment with news, but that is what has happened, and that is why this debate requires clarity.
Rating:
Summary: about time
Review: About time someone dispelled this myth! how can we dare claim the media leans left when it was the NYT, after all, that had the 4 page spread on the supposed threat of Saddam's WMD in September?
and isn't it interesting that when the media is controlled by a huge conglomerate like rupert murdoch's fox empire that it's "right wing" and when it's controlled by the people (i.e. NPR, PBS), it's considered 'liberal.' Kinda makes you think the huge corporations are buying up media outlets and brainwashing people into their ideas ('free market and deregulation is good for you') because it's good for big corporations.
To the reviewers that just rate this book 1 star that don't bother reading more than the title, get a life. Really. Dont you have anything better to do?
Rating:
Summary: The Big Fix
Review: Anyone who hasn't followed the TV/Print media from the seventies on just might buy into the notion peddled by conservatives that there is something called liberal bias in their dailies. That the truth is totally the reverse is obvious to anyone who has watched said/same liberal media seem to bite the dust. The public has been knocked senseless by this propaganda tide. Alterman does a very good job of skewering this Big Lie and exposing the Big Fix that has been going on, especially since the Reagan years when the really vicious streak and lowball vulgarity began its ominous career. Let's hope there is still a chance for a comeback. I think there is because it can't get any worse unless it turns fascist.
Rating: 
Summary: Bias?????
Review: "What Liberal Media?" serves as an excellent companion to Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them." It is not as funny as Franken's book, but it is not a humor piece, so it comes as no surprise. It is a serious study of what Alterman considers to be a conservative myth. He lays out his argument very effectively, and cites numerous examples that the media, if it has any bias at all, is primarily conservative. He points to Fox News and the 2000 election coverage as prime examples of this truth. This is not much different from Franken, but Alterman goes even more in depth. He discusses conservative bias on CNN (Novak and Carlson), MSNBC (Chris Matthews, which might be a stretch) and some of the Beltway Press Corps, ( a lengthy analysis of David Broder). This book is worth the read, and the author does a very thorough job of covering his subject.
Rating:
Summary: Looked in vain for a thoughtful conservative post here...
Review: Mind you, I'm sure a thoughtful conservative review does lurk here somewhere, hidden among the tens of ill-written rants and out-of-hand dismissals that are already posted. But alas, this is going to be another liberal-minded review. I just finished the book--accelerating through it after some early worries about Alterman's writing style (relentlessly complex sentences that require careful parsing). I was skeptical at the outset, nodding along with Alterman's admission that to argue for a conservative media bias seems "beyond the pale" at this moment in time. However, it's difficult to counter his argument. Certainly, none of the first 50 or so opposition reviews on this site do anything like counter it. The ironic and sad thing is that the most confident conservative dismissals of Alterman's case here seem to miss his thesis entirely. Just because the majority of television and newspaper reporters (or bureau chiefs) are liberal-minded does not mean that they currently produce a liberally-biased product. This idea seems to dumbfound the conservative audience, who cannot imagine a mindset where dedication to one's journalistic profession might possibly trump dedication to one's personal ideology. Mind you, I am not saying that a liberal press could not produce a liberally-biased product. Just because a scoffing Sean Hannity says it's so, however, does not make it so. Alterman uses the only defensible approach--one based on statistics as well as numerous specific, well-documented examples--to convincingly show that the current conventional wisdom about liberal press bias is wrong. And, what's more, rudimentary consideration of the recent evidence should bring any thoughtful observer to the same conclusion--assuming he or she can get past the knee-jerk "Dan Rather is clearly a liberal!" stance. Of course, I'm unlikely to change too many conservative minds. So, here is a plea to the guilty liberals out there: don't be guilty! Your viewpoint is valid, and it is being subtly suppressed in a manner that is destructive to our country and our world. Read this book and get mad.
Rating:
Summary: Sorry for taking up space here...but...
Review: It's fascinating. I haven't read this book, but I'm utterly amazed at the reviews here online. I was just looking at different books I might want to purchase. Here, and in most of the so-called "liberally slanted" books out there I've found reviewers who have not read one bloody thing written between the covers, but yet they find the need to come here and spew their misguided thoughts. It made me wonder...and I felt like sharing. What exactly are these people afraid of? Why are "liberals" so threatening to them? Do they even know what liberal philosophy holds? Of course they don't...they'd rather hate something than figure out what's happening in the world around them. I will read this book...and I'm sure it will reinforce what my thoughts are about the issues facing our "democratic" society. I will use the knowledge to argue against the gross ignorance that I see in the world...and in just these types of reviews. For all those who are angry...don't be - I'm not - it's not your fault. You're just a product of your environment.
| 
