Rating: 
Summary: Some readers are mistaken
Review: The reader from Lakewood, Ohio said "One of the reviewers of this book - the one from Bristol TN - is a total idiot. One of his/her proofs that the media is liberal is that the French are liberal. Hello? Can anyone make any sense out of that statement?".The reader from Lakewood, Ohio took this statement out of context. The comment was that the French along with Eric Alterman were so liberal and leftist, that in comparison the liberal couple of Bill and Hillary Clinton are considered moderate in comparison. This statement appear to be intended to show that different people come from different perspectives of liberal, moderate, and conservative. Then the reviewer from Bristol, TN went on to say that since Eric Alterman was so far to left of most Americans and liberals in particular, that Eric Alterman would view all media sources other than the leftist "The Nation" as conservative. The debate on liberal and conservative bias is based on your own personal perspectives.
Rating: 
Summary: Destroys "liberal media" myth
Review: This is a an exhaustive, well documented arguement against the the "liberal media" myth. I, like most people, believed that the media did have a liberal tilt, this book showed me otherwise. I didn't have to just take his word for it, as one does in Bernard Goldbergs book "Bias", rather I could checkout his documentation and see for myself. Of course where you stand in the political spectrum will heavily influence what you consider bias, but I think reasonable conservatives and others will rethink their views on this subject if they give this book a read.
Rating:
Summary: The idiot from Bristol TN.....
Review: One of the reviewers of this book - the one from Bristol TN - is a total idiot. One of his/her proofs that the media is liberal is that the French are liberal. Hello? Can anyone make any sense out of that statement?
Rating:
Summary: The "truth" about bias? Seriously?
Review: I like to read books of all opinions, in order to learn something. If I cannot learn anything from all the efforts taken to put together a book, as is the case here, I must question the slaughter of trees to print such a reading. Published polls show that some 95% of the people in media vote strictly along democratic party lines. Any news viewer saw plainly that Dan Rather and Peter Jennings were nearly in tears when Al Gore lost his presidential election. Subsequently, Eric Alterman tells us there is no predominant left bias in the news. Huh? I'm reading reviews of others who think this book's premise is right on the money. Who is the author, and these readers, who are trying to communicate to the rest of us that the news media, being 95% self-admitted staunch democrats, are not as a whole biased toward the left? I think there is great room in America for ALL LIBERAL ideas, and CONSERVATIVE ideas. However, no right nor left idea should be coming from a NEWSCASTER. They should be telling what happened during the day, not what to think about it. But the newscasters' admitted bias is obvious. Consequently, Alterman's premise has done a terrible disservice to real liberal thinkers across the nation: it discredits the liberal left and their ideas completely to call a large group of liberals as un-biased. I don't think the staunchest conservative could have insulted liberals any more than this liberal proponent has done. I think some politically oriented author will sell a great number of books if they take an informative, objective stand, rather than trying to promote their ideas with a shockingly left (or right) biased piece. This book conjures up ideas for a new best seller, that would sell across all party lines: "Why the predominately liberal slant to the news is the best mechanism for delivery of the news." Rather than rent these political books from the library, like I always do, I will BUY the above title, sight unseen, knowing it will have some great dissertations from the heart, detailing why the author believes in liberalism. And the way publishing works, that one best-seller will recoup the losses publishers eat for another 30 pieces of idiocy like this book.
Rating:
Summary: Bristol TN?
Review: Sure seem to be a lot of negative reviews coming out of Bristol, TN. One reviewer sure must have a lot of time on his hands. Of course with the Bush economy there about 6 million out of work who now have the time.
Rating: 
Summary: The Editorials actual refute his point...
Review: Amazon.com's editorial review states "But it's likely to be a tonic for anyone who has suspected that in a media environment overflowing with conservatives..." Overflowing with conservatives? As if that claim is not hotly disputed. The Booklist review by Ileen Cooper closes with "The myth of the liberal media is an idea that is gaining currency..." Myth? I guess Ileen has made up her mind. Only Audiofile and Publisher's Weekly do what an editorial review should do: evaluate the book on its merits and effectiveness in presenting its thesis - leaving it for you to decide on the thesis itself. The others display precisely the subtle bias Bernard Goldberg objects to in his book "Bias: a CBS insider exposes how the media distort the news": the kind of bias where the writer presents his/her opinion as fact, and unworthy of critical thought. Bernard's remains the best of the books on this topic, because it doesn't rant, it's thoughtfully written by a respected 28-year CBS veteran, it specifically denies there's any systemic liberal conspiracy, nor a Democrat vs. Republican reporting bias. Rather, it unveils how reporter's and editor's personal biases (in many forms, including a too-common elitist sensibility) unconciously influence how they report and present the news. In a nutshell, most of those who are biased truly don't know it - which is why when confronted, they deny it so heatedly. I think Rush Limbaugh is an idiot, Sean Hannity an unlistenable blowhard, and Michael Savage a truly hateful human, but none of them deny they're conservative. Anyway, Bernard's book is better-written and better balanced than Alterman's, and is full of eye-opening quotes from those who actually present the news (vs. those who complain about it). Regardless of your political leanings, you'll derive much more food for discussion there.
Rating: 
Summary: media is complicated
Review: The author writes about the different kinds of media in various chapters in his book. There is a chapter on print media, tv pundits, the experts who get on shows and so on. The publishers and editors of newspapers are heavily republican. It is up to the editors and publishers what is allowed in a newspaper. Reporters tend to be liberal on a few social issues like gay rights and abortion but conservative on other issues. A study was conducted by Dr. David Croteau of Virginia Commonwealth University. Only 39% of journalists believe protecting Social Security and Medicare should be one our our top few priorities compared to 59% of the public. When asked if too much power is in the hands of a few corporations 24% of journalists strongly agreed versus 62% of the public who strongly agreed. When it comes to political pundits conservatives have got another advantage. Liberals who are good at debating like Joe Conason don't get regular spots on TV shows but liberals like Alan Colmes or Susan Estrich who don't even seem to care if they win do. This was especially true before Carville and Begala became regular co-hosts on Crossfire replacing Bill Press.
Rating:
Summary: Bias Within Bias
Review: Alterman is missing the Big Picture here. The news media, like college professors and others in the so-called intellectual community, have always historically been liberals. Why? Perhaps it could be that conservatives have been so busy managing the business world to even bother with the press, or perhaps it is because liberals see the press as a means to spread their "progressive" ideas. Regardless, 2/3 of journalists have admitted in surveys to their liberal slant. This should not be in question. The most disturbing aspect of this issue is that unlike admitted partisans like Limbaugh or Hannity who proudly proclaim themselves to be conservative commentators, the liberal news media continually slants its news coverage under the guise of objectivity. This is what angers conservatives; not that some folks are liberal, but that they refuse to admit it. Everyone knows what conservative Sean Hannity's biases are when they watch him on television and his statements can be weighed by those with opposing viewpoints with an understanding of who he is and what he believes in, leaving viewers to make their own judgements. Also, there is a distinction to be made between "Commentators" who are pundits like Hannity, Chris Matthews, and Bill O'Reilly who make it clear they are providing opinion and "Journalists" who claim to be objective but often are commentators in disguise. There is a liberal bias in the news media and most of them admit it themselves. Now it is time for members of the media to either report the news FAIRLY or come out of the closet as honest liberal "commentators."
Rating:
Summary: Essential reading for an informed citizenry
Review: This is an outstanding book, carefully written, meticulously researched, and vigorously argued. The essential point of the book is easy to grasp: by "working the refs," conservatives have cowed the press into promoting conservative views and shunning liberal ideas that were part of mainstream American politics only twenty years ago. Any reader who doesn't bring fixed ideas to the table need only flip to the endnotes to discover that nothing here is made up. And the reader who thinks he or she already knows all there is to know IN FAVOR of Alterman's thesis will certainly be amazed by many of the howlers the author presents for consideration. In short, as we approach the next Presidential election, it is essential to understand the way people spin information. Alterman's book belongs at the heart of that process.
Rating:
Summary: very detailed
Review: Alterman's opinion is that that reporters tends to be liberal on a few social issues, but more importantly they are conservative when it comes to their veiw of corporations. Newspaper publishers and editors tend to be republicans and they control what gets in newspapers. The credibility of the man (Mansoor Ijaz) who says Sudan was going to offer Bin Laden is a bit ify. He was an investment banker with huge stakes in Sudanese Oil. He wanted Sandy Berger to lift sanctions on Sudan. When the U.S. talked to Sudan there was no such offer. The Clinton administration saw terrorism as a top priority. The pre-911 Bush administration did not. Also, most Americans do not think that the media has a liberal bias. Most is over 50%. Not that many people do. Many people think there is a liberal bias because they hear it repeated by conservatives over and over and over again. If they were really that liberal they would have given Gore more positive coverage than Bush. From the non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts Project for excellence in Journalism is a study that found that Bush recieved more favorable coverage than Gore. The numbers were Gore 13% positive coverage and Bush 24% positive coverage. Gore recieved 56% negative coverage to Bush's 49% negative coverage. The remaining coverage was neutral. The chapter on the 2000 election was one of the most interesting to me. It demonstrates that when it comes to politics the media is quite hostile to democrats and it gives examples of the unfair treatment dished out to Gore.
| 
