Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

Rating:
Summary: A maddening confirmation of what many of us suspected
Review: After reading this book, I bought 4 more and gave them to friends. All had the same response, fascination with this insider's look at the news business, coupled with anger at the institutional, liberal bias that permeates the national news media.

Mr. Goldberg describes himself as a liberal, New York Jew, now being portrayed as a right wing fanatic. This book was the result of his being ostracized by the media elite following an op-ed piece he did for the Wall Street Journal criticizing liberal bias in the media.

The most startling statement in this book, is when Mr. Goldberg alleges that Dan Rather, Tom Brockaw, Peter Jennings, and others would pass a lie detector test while saying that did not report the news from a liberal worldview! He makes a great case that this is because the circles in which these folks operate are so small, and so out of touch with most Americans, that they can't see their own bias.

He offers concrete examples, such as the practice of always identifying conservative sources as such, but never identifying liberal sources as liberals. The reason, they view conservatives as oddballs, and liberals as normal people. Again, due to the small circles in which they live and operate.

I also found interesting Mr. Goldberg's take on the "business" of the news. Network News organizations are losing viewers rapidly, and a case can be made that it's due to their liberal bias. They steadfastly refuse however, to accept this as even a possibility, and so they stand around and watch their business deteriorate.

Conservatives will love this book, liberals won't, but both will find it interesting and a great topic for discussion.

Rating:
Summary: An Unacclaimed Whistleblower...
Review: Bernard Goldberg notes that the mainstream news (ABC, CBS & NBC) all tend to love whistleblowers....So long as they're not media insider whistleblowers.

Throughout "Bias," Goldberg gives countless examples of media distortion and bias and wonders, where the Edward R Murrow doctrine of reporting the facts WITHOUT personal opinion or "our slant" went.

According to Mr. Goldberg, his fortunes at CBS changed drastically after he wrote an Op Ed piece, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal, criticizing colleague Eric Engberg's dersion of Steve Forbes' Flat Tax plan. The same flat tax recently adopted by Russia, a nation that keeps moving further and further from its socialist roots.

Bernard Goldberg holds a mirror up to the mainstream media and it's not surprising that they don't much like what they see. The "Left-wing bias" charge has been around for decades and though some, like Dan Rather deny it, others, like Peter Jennings have, in recent years admitted that "conservative voices in the mainstream media are few and far between." I suspect that his confirming this charge is not what really angers his peers, it's his exposing the blatant hypocrisy of the media elites that has them as mad as a bunch of wet hornets.

He tells of news people seeking out blue eyed blondes when doing stories on Aids and homelessness because they fear that upper income whites (their target audience) won't relate to these stories if the faces are predominatly black, Hispanic or Asian.

...

Ironically enough, those same people who champion "diversity" seem to cringe when it comes to ideological diversity. Goldberg notes John Stossel as the lone Libertarian (and thus "right-of-center") voice on ABC News. This observation is made by a self-proclaimed "Kennedy Liberal," as Goldberg professes to favor both gay rights and abortion and says he voted against Ronald Reagan twice.

Bernard Goldberg mentions how one CBS producer casually referred to Gary Bauer of the Christian Coalition as "That little nut from that Christian group." He also noted that no one in that room would've dared call Jesse Jackson "That big nut from that black group," or Dov Hikind "That right-wing nut from that Jewish group." But we've all seen examples of that, even if we don't choose to notice it. Just look at how the mainstram media heaps praise upon the cackling likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson while ridiculing eleoquent and erudite black scholars like Thomas Sowell and Walter E Williams. Black conservatives like Emanuel McLittle (of Destiny Magazine) and Ken Hamblin (Radio Talk Show Host) fare little better as they are routinely excoriated more roundly than are out and out racial haters like the late Khalid Mohammed and New Black Panther Party leader Quannel X.

"Bias" has given the media a gift of the mirror he holds up to it. Since the eighties AM Talk Radio has cut into the viewership of television news and with the advent of Cable news, specifically Fox News, the market share that ABC, CBS and NBC all enjoyed has markedly diminished. For those who insist that ideology has no part of this shift, consider that no Liberal Radio Talk Show Host has ever enjoyed the ratings success that their conservative counterparts have, and that MSNBC and CNN have recently both been scrambling for "conservative voices" - Alan Keyes has joined MSNBC and CNN stole Paula Zahn from Fox News early in 2002.

Bernard Goldberg's book is filled with tons of fascinating anecdotal tales and personal accounts of what goes on behind the scenes in network news. There are a few editorial glitches here and there, but the book itself is a riveting read that really delivers what it promises.

Rating:
Summary: Goldberg is "Bias"ed
Review: As a moderate Democrat I feel it is important to hear and consider other points of view. It was somewhat of a revelation to me to learn that the major networks may lean to the left in their reporting of the news. It was, however, very painful to endure Mr. Goldberg's relentless right-wing rhetoric. He uses all the subtlety of a sledgehammer in displaying his own bias. I think this seriously detracts from what could have been a groundbreaking book.

Rating:
Summary: An Honest Personal Observation
Review: Bernard Goldberg's book is--and purports to be -- nothing more or less than his personal observations and opinions about the workings of the U.S. TV news industry. He developed his opinions as a result of having been a reporter for CBS News for almost 30 years. His opinions are honest and straightforward, and he's entitled to them. Moreover, they have validity precisely because "he was there." "Bias" is entertaining and insightful, and Mr. Goldberg is perfectly entitled to say everything he says.

The dishonesty of some of the left-leaning reviews of the book just astounds me. For example, the criticism from left-leaning reviewers that his accusations of liberal bias don't count because he doesn't support them with a lot of footnotes is ridiculous. His book is intended to tell us about HIS experiences in TV news, HIS interactions with the media bosses, HIS discussions with other reporters, HIS perceptions of how reporters do their jobs, etc. -- all based on HIS having worked in TV news. The book doesn't need footnotes.

Some of these leftist reviews tell you more about the present-day left than they do about Mr.Goldberg's book. They tell you, essentially, that if a person's opinions aren't politically correct, then the person isn't entitled to them. They tell you that despite what Mr. Goldberg saw and heard, his impressions are invalid because,look, here are some statistics from Eric Alterman or Jonathan Alter or some such liberal that "prove" the media cannot possibly be biased. "Mr. Goldberg," they essentially say, "is not entitled to form opinions based on what he saw and heard and experienced, and you are not entitled to believe him when he conveys those opinions to you. You both must be reeducated to the politically correct 'truth' that the media is not at all biased." Right. The media is not biased and neither are these leftist reviewers; the book is [bad material], and I DO love Big Brother. (But, just between you and me, I highly recommend that you go buy "Bias" and read it anyway.)

Rating:
Summary: Interesting viewpoint-very muddled analysis.
Review: I bought Bernard Goldberg"s Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News at an airport news stand between flights on a recent business trip. What caught my eye was a "blurb" prominently splashed across the front cover that read "'Bias' should be taken seriously." And who was that quote from? Why that bastion of liberal tradition, the New York Times! How could anyone pass on that sort of irony?

This book is interesting, but logically it's a mess.

Take the whole "Flat Tax" flap that serves as the instigator of Goldberg's public feud with his bosses at CBS (he wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal about the reporting on this issue, provoking their ire towards him) which Goldberg chronicles in detail in this book. Goldberg asserts that CBS's reporting, specifically that of Eric Engberg, was critical of the notion in its entirety and therefore stands as a classic example of "liberal media bias". "There is absolutely no way", he writes " that Enberg or Rather would have aired a flat-tax story with that same contemptuous tone if Teddy Kennedy or Hillary Clinton had come up with the idea." The clear implication is it was the media's liberal bias that colored that story-presumably with the express intent of harming the Republicans and aiding the Democrats in an election year. What Mr. Goldberg fails to communicate is that this piece came out during the primaries when it's proponent, Steve Forbs, was running against the presumed nominee, Bob Dole. If you go back and look at that election coverage in the winter and spring of 1996 you will see that all kinds of respectable Republicans-Including Dole, Newt Gingrich and others, were lambasting Forbes's economic plans from all sides. It was primarily Bob Dole-not the Democrats-who benefited from this coverage.

The basis for Goldberg's allegations, charges and whatnot in the book have two foundations. The first is his own fist hand experience. These provide interesting insights and much fodder for contemplation. However, even some of his own stories muddle his assertions. For example, one of Goldberg's consistent themes, often repeated throughout this book, is that journalists are so ideologically insular that they "can't even recognize their own bias". As evidence he tells the tale-and this is a central event in the book, oft mentioned throughout this text-- of a conversation with CBS News President Andrew Heyward in which the latter allegedly confessed to Goldberg that "of course there's liberal bias in the media" but tells Goldberg that "if you any of this, I'll deny it". Excuse me, how to you admit to something you are so insular you can't recognize? It's this sort of muddled logic that permeates this book.

The second is the often cited surveys that show a vast majority of journalists, when polled, identify themselves as Democrats. The implication is that all Democrats are liberal, virtually all journalists are democrats, therefore all journalists are liberal. There are two problems with this. The first is, based on my experience living in the south for much longer than I care to admit, is that there are plenty of hard-core conservatives in the Democratic Party. They aren't called "yellow dog" Democrats for nothing.

The other problem is that when you dig into these surveys they reveal journalists actually look a lot like a lot of middle America when specific issue surveys are included-a bit to the left on social issues, a bit to the right on economic and military issues.

Towards the end of the book Goldberg asserts that "Ratings are the reason television people (including journalists and their bosses-my addition, not a part of the direct quote) do everything they do". Gee, based on the rest of his book, I thought it was bias.

There's another nagging problem here. For a book that's supposedly the work of a crack investigative journalist, this tome is long on assertion and allegations and very short on objective analysis, data and evidence. Goldberg obviously genuinely believes in the concept of liberal media bias. He does precious little to actually document it in concrete ways.

Does the media have biases? Almost surely. Does this book offer any real, meaningful insight and analysis into the origins, workings and effects of that bias? Not really.

Rating:
Summary: silly
Review: A book that demonstrates how easy it really is to lie for money and fame.

I mean, if these sort of books were television shows, Anne Coulter's "Slander" would be Survivor, and "Bias" would be the Sci-Fi channel's house with eight spooky-cooky people.

Poorly researched. Poorly written. But above all, actually managing to prove his point simply by existing as a lying journalist.

Rating:
Summary: A Real Sleeper
Review: I heard a lot about this book, so I checked it out of the library to find out what people were talking about. It takes pages and pages of flabby prose for Goldberg to get to the heart of his argument, which is largely anecdotal and mostly unverifiable. Goldberg tells us breathlessly that an unnamed person agrees with him in a two-person meeting that there is "liberal" bias in the news. Maybe it happened, but why should anyone believe it? Let's see some proof. Right-leaning reviewers love this book because it bashes "liberals," while left-leaning reviewers dismiss it as exhibiting right-wing bias. A book so devoid of verifiable facts is probably open to this wide range of interpretation. Most readers will find their own prejudices strengthened by Goldberg's vague indictment. This insider's look at CBS News will intrigue readers of People magazine. However, if you are looking for a good read, this isn't it. Goldberg's book is self-indulgent and poorly written.

Rating:
Summary: Poorly-written, nonetheless extremely important and gutsy
Review: This book is not very graceful. The prose is childish. Goldberg often uses profanity. And there is not much of a flow to the argument.

However, I still think that this book is extremely important - and Bernard Goldberg is a very courageous man. It is true that the media is very arrogant and very tiltied to the left. We've all known it for years. Now, one of the insiders who has personal experience has confirmed what we've all known all along.

The book offers a behind-the-scenes look at CBS News. It affords us an extremely important perspective on an important issue of our time. I would recommend it to anyone - conservative or liberal.

Rating:
Summary: One of the most important books of the 21st Century...
Review: ...if you own a television or radio and watch and/or listen to news. Bernie Goldberg did something more brave than any of his contemporaries even fantasized about - he wrote factual editorial in the Wall Street Journal about liberal bias in the media. Doesn't sound like a big deal - conservatives scream liberal bias almost as often as liberals scream about "right-wing" bias... but unlike those who brought up the subject before, Bernie Goldberg was an insider - a correspondent on CBS news.

Not only was "the Dan" (Rather) so livid that he stated he would "never" forgive Goldberg for such a betrayal (for "telling it like it is"), his entire career (over a quarter of a century at CBS) was flushed down the toilet, with all the media elites fighting for the flush lever... with "the Dan" as head plumber.

The brass at CBS treating him like a Pariah and the media elites on the other networks, Jennings, Brokaw and others were vehemetly denying that they even had any political slant and claimed that Goldberg, himself a self-avowed liberal who claims to have never voted for a Republican in his life, had some long-standing Right-wing agenda.

Goldberg does more than just talk about his one editorial and the reaction, but cites article after article in mainstream press in America and cites quote after quote from liberals and conservatives on Radio and TV and contrasts their statements with opposite equivalents to make those w/ a liberal slant wake up and smell the bias (if they dare).

Those who still deny a liberal bias after reading this book cover to cover are either lying, brain-dead or too stupid to know the difference.

Goldberg's book is an extremely witty, often funny, and clearly factual account of liberal bias among the media elites and the "big 3" networks. This should be required reading of all journalist/mass-media majors in college. Goldberg cites the ratings plunge of the network news programs year after year (the vast majority are going for cable options such as the more equally balanced FoxNews Channel) as a symptom of a long-ignored illness he first alluded to in his editorial - the public generally does not trust the main stream media. Before they had no choice but to pick from CBS, NBC or ABC - now the choices are abundant - or as Goldberg would categorize it, "sky's the limit."

Far from being a "tell-all" whine-fest of a disgruntled employee airing dirty laundry as a vendetta against his former task-masters, Goldberg speaks kindly of Rather on many respects, and seems to deal as fair handed as anyone could ask for in discussing what the puppet-masters at CBS, et al have been sweeping under their corporate rugs for years.

This is not only an easy, entertaining read, it's a must-read. If you read any non-fiction books this century, this should be the first one you grab - and don't let go until you've read it cover to cover!

Rating:
Summary: Sloppy Research
Review: Note that I haven't yet read this book. But since I recently learned of a rather egregious misquote that originated from this book, I question whether the rest of his research was as sloppy.

When I first heard about this book, I was intrigued by the concept, and I assumed that Mr. Goldberg knew whereof he spoke. After all, he has had a long career in the mainstream media. And even a far-left liberal would have to concede that the major newspapers and network news do have a pro-liberal bias.

However.....Mr. Goldberg attacks Howell Raines in this book. Mr. Raines was the former editor of the New York Times. Mr. Goldberg claims that Mr. Raines made the following statement:

"Ronald Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it."

Goldberg uses that quote as some sort of "proof" that Raines is anti-Reagan, and that Raines made an ad hominem attack on Reagan.

Well, folks.... HOWELL RAINES NEVER SAID THAT!!! Instead, his good friend Dick Blalock said it, as quoted in Raines' book "Fly Fishing Through The Midlife Crisis".

Now, it wasn't too difficult to fact-check that particular quote. It's plainly stated in Raines' book, not buried in footnotes or anything.

But Goldberg couldn't even be bothered to check his sources.

So....what does that say about the remainder of Goldberg's book? Based on that one rather appalling and sloppy mistake, how much would you bet me that I couldn't find a half-dozen more like that in this book?

And the fact that Ann Coulter, and others of her ilk, are spreading this misquote? Well, to me it's proof that these are people who are willing to bend the truth if there's a potentially juicy quote that they just don't want to give up.