Rating: 
Summary: Goldberg's book is an eye-opener
Review: I found this book to be a bracing and level-handed narrative. While it is obvious that Goldberg carries animosity toward Dan Rather, the reasons for that animosity are equally (and understandably) obvious. That Goldberg's feelings come though is not disguised, apologized for or compromising to his objectivity.Goldberg offers plenty of documented facts and news items that are available through libraries or Internet research. If you honestly believe political ideology is not reflected in the words (or actions/inactions) of the news media (and this include the corporate ownership of the media outlets) then this book should serve as an introduction to the psychology of the English language and power of the broadcasted word. After twenty-something years in the industry, Goldberg didn't just wake up one day and "bite the hand that fed him." The "straw that broke the camel's back" and set him on the course of this book, was the media treatment of Forbs' flat tax plan--a plan that was poked fun at instead of merely being reported. After Forbs' (and similar suggestions) were felled to the wayside, the Russians implemented a flat tax that lessened the taxable burden of a $5000 wage earner (in U.S. equivalent dollars) from paying $1,500 to $650 in taxes for that same income (this is in 2000 year dollars, just after the plan was implemented with results to critique). Likewise, the pre-2000 Russian tax revenue equaled 9 to 10 percent of their GDP that was boosted by 15% post flat tax implementation. And the Russian GDP grew 5 percent in 2001. Similarly, what Forbs suggested changing was the U.S tax rates of 10, 15, 27, 30, and 35 percent--all in the hopes of providing a fair tax program and income for the government. Whether Forbs was right was not the news media's job to determine or derail through slanted reporting. Of course, at the time no one had the real-world example of the Russian flat tax plan to point to--but did that make poking fun at the Forbs plan by the news media "okay?" Goldberg didn't think so. What I found (and still find) most interesting is the weak rebuttal to Goldberg's facts. Certainly Goldberg discusses conversations wherein he alleges the participants said they would deny such exchanges took place, but these "excerpts" are insignificant to the totality of this book. Even so, these are the items usually "attacked" in reviews, while rebuttal to factual information is conspicuous by its absence. After having read this book, I saw a "point/counter-point" review in a local newspaper wherein just such a review appeared. There was NO rebuttal to data, facts or news stories but rather jokes about the few conversations that even Goldberg himself said would not be corroborated. I don't know that Goldberg implies that "all conservatives" are identified by the news media while "all liberals" are not, as was indicated in a previous review here on Amazon.com. Such a wide-sweeping statement is not what I came away with after reading "Bias." But in addition to everything covered in this book, what I came away with was the startling realization that "yeah, I do remember hearing the "Dan Rathers" of TV news point out "conservative" instead of "liberal" lawmakers." When a book points out something I had personally witnessed and failed to note, I know I've read more than hot air. As for Goldberg's research... Well, as mentioned hereinabove, a tremendous amount of that "research" is available in the form of newspaper, magazines and recorded programs. Goldberg's book is an eye-opener. I highly recommend it. DL Tolleson
Author, "The Gray Stopgap"
Rating: 
Summary: The stories are better from the inside
Review: Many, many people have pontificated on the behind the scenes nature of the media elites. But getting one of them to confess is a treat. Surprisingly, it isn't some evil desire to hurt the GOP or Christians that drives the leftists but rather a complete blindness to the existence of the competing views. A unique and interesting read.
Rating: 
Summary: Ludicrous
Review: First off, this book shouldn't realy be called "Bias" -- it should be called "Boy, Do I Hate Dan Rather!" Because Goldberg REALLY hates Dan Rather to the point where his objectivity is utterly compromised resulting in a "woman scorned" kind of vitriolic prose that borders on the laughable. Beyond that, there are two incredibly serious flaws with Goldberg's book. The first is that, even if what Goldberg is saying is factual, it may prove a bias, but not a liberal bias. Some of what he describes is the "sweeps" mentality of profit-oriented news, where the fight for ratings results in many unseemly stories appealing to the viewers' baser instincts. That's bad journalism, to be sure, but liberal? I don't see how. He also talks about the tendencies for news magazines to focus primarily on white people in their stories. This is wrong, but again, I don't see how this is liberal. In actuality, it seems downright anti-liberal. The other flaw is that Goldberg doesn't bother to substantiate his "facts" and a number of his "facts" turn out to be wrong, i.e. the idea that all conservatives are identified as conservatives, whereas liberals are not identified as liberals (for a more thorough demolishing of this book, read Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?"). In the end, the fact that Goldberg doesn't feel it is necessary to do any research to support his findings, or even explain how his findings support his thesis, speaks volumes about his target audience ("Megadittos, Rush!") whom he believes (correctly) will be won over by this simplistic, sloppy, self-contradictory hateful little book.
Rating:
Summary: Illuminating the truth.
Review: There is a liberal bias in the media. Even my liberal Democrat friends admit this. However, for some reason no one within the major media sees it or is willingly to admit it. After reading Bernard Goldberg's book, one begins to understand why. Goldberg used to work for CBS. He was one of the more intelligent reporters on the Big Eye and I remember some of his segments on "48 Hours". Dan Rather used to be a close friend of his. That was before Goldberg committed the "unpardonable sin": he wrote a guest op-ed piece in the WALL STREET JOURNAL that told us what we already knew, that the media was biased. What was different, was that Goldberg was an insider; someone from within the business. For his honesty, Goldberg lost his job. In BIAS, Goldberg explains the events leading up to his writing the WALL STREET JOURNAL piece and his eventual resignation at CBS. Intertwined with that story, are a collection of facts, figures, ancedotes, and stories that illustrate just how the major media are biased and illuminate the hypocrisy that lies within. The book is easy to read and is thought-provoking. Granted, Goldberg does seem to have a grudge against Dan Rather and is still upset at his personal betrayal by the anchor and host he once called friend. Still, setting aside the vindictive tone against Rather and company, BIAS is still an eye opener. I've known for years the media are biased, but I never realized how much so until I read this book. If you don't believe that, just look at the recent Dan Rather interview with Saddam Hussein and you'll see just what Goldberg is talking about.
Rating:
Summary: Great read with a new foreword in paperback
Review: Great look into the closed clique of CBS News, and a good insight into the vindictiveness of "Gunga Dan" (or "The Dan) Mr. Dan Rather. Very interesting in light of Dan Rather's recent, preposterous, softball "exclusive interview" of Saddam Hussein.
("Are you suggesting that you would like to DEBATE President George Bush???")
Goldberg is right on the money. Buy the paperback. It has a new forword, and it's cheaper than the hardback.
Kenneth, what is the frequency?
Rating:
Summary: Eye-opening account of the liberal media!
Review: This book is written so well it drew me in immediately. I cannot agree more with the author on so many points. This nation is in trouble, in fact, we are in a war over the values and policies that have made us a great nation. One could get very discouraged knowing the inflammatory methods the media uses to incite 'HATE' in its viewers. The media is guilty of 'hate crimes' on a daily basis. Prejudicing the minds of millions 24 hours a day!
Rating:
Summary: Even for the unconverted
Review: The thing I found most valuable about the book was Mr. Goldberg's testimony regarding (esp.) CBS' arrogance and hypocrisy. That the major networks have a liberal slant to the news is no surprise to most and Goldberg provides several thematic examples of this; Homelessness, AIDS, political-correctness, moral-relativism, to name a few. How the media's choice of 'experts' on a particular issue plays into a predictable conclusion is covered. Also he reinforces through anecdote and cited polls the left-leaning personal views of members of the media and how that personal bias cannot be easily seperated from ultimate news content and presentation. He also has a good section on some powerful and important subjects that don't get covered for fear of offending a liberal preferred group. The thing that I hope most Americans find valuable in this book, even if they don't agree that the media slants coverage to support liberal ideas, is how the media - especially Dan Rather and CBS, hold themselves to a different (and lower) standard than those they cover. Mr. Goldberg makes a convincing case that the same people whose life mission is expose corruption and injustice (at least as they see it) in others like Big Business, the Military, the Police, etc. are blind and utterly inflexible to corruption in themselves. What Mr. Goldberg did was courageous. It's a shame the Media Establishment didn't treat him with the same decency and openness that it treats whistleblowers exposing institutions the media considers fair game. The arrogance and hypocrisy of people like Dan Rather is staggering and comes out clearly in this book. That was the part of the book that was most revealing to me. Though he applied the analogy to Dan Rather in reference to Richard Nixon, the CBS Executive in question could have applied it to the entire media establishment - "We have become what we most detested".
Rating:
Summary: We've been saying it all along
Review: Mr. Goldberg finally said it. "The emperor has no clothes"
Written in a witty yet documented fashion, Bias is an important, yet readable and entertaining book. Well documented, it ilustrates how the media, in particular the TV stations and CNN distort the news, in favor of the left. More to the point, it explains quite well how they remain blissfully ignorant of the fact. By using as a reference for center a publication that is quite left of the majority of the country, by definition, anything to the right of that publication becomes extreme right.
The fact that the paper in question, supports each and every item in the liberal agenda, while condemning each and every item in the conservative one, seems lost on the journalists who are awed by the prestige of the paper used as a reference.
If you see the bias you will like this book. If you don't you probably will not see it even if you read it.
Rating:
Summary: It's different when the Left exposes the Left
Review: It's common to hear conservatives lament that the media has a left-wing bias. It's rare to hear about left-wing media bias from a liberal. Bernard Goldberg shows the "formulas" by which the left taints their news and story coverage to fit their ideology. Of course, he also shows a few examples of right-wing bias, but since most of the media (print or broadcast) is dominated by liberals, those examples are few. If you want to see the truth, and to understand how the minds of the masses are manipulated every day in the U.S., you've got to get this book.
Rating: 
Summary: "Bias" is biased at all !
Review: It is always interesting that authors who write about bias are the most biased of all.
| 
