Rating: Summary: Compelling reading Review: I read this book in one day. Goldberg's writing is incisive, biting, and at times, witty. Exposes the hypocrisy of the network darlings, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, et al, who, eager to make heroes out of whistleblowers in corporate America, respond with Nixonian paranoia when someone from inside their own camp questions their motives. What astonished me was that the impetus for Goldberg's ostracization within the media community-his 1996 Wall Stree Journal Op-ed piece-was rather mild in its critisicm of the media, and, if anything, singled out CBS correspondent, Eric Engberg. Yet it was this piece that caused Dan Rather to tell Goldberg that he would "never" forgive him, despite the fact that he would welcome a tyrannical dictator like Fidel Castro with open arms. In short, Goldberg's indictment doesn't confine itself to liberal vs conservative, but attacks the decline of ethics in journalism without sounding like a conspiracy theory text. Great read.
Rating: Summary: Bias in the Corporate Media? Review: Don't Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story! Those who work for a company know that certain policies cannot be questioned; your manager's opinions are best left unchallenged. After three decades at CBS Bernard Goldberg discovered this fact also applies to media workers! The corporate lifeblood of advertising depends on telling people what to think and buy. What insider can question this? Corporate workers know what policies and viewpoints will help you get ahead, even if you do not have a relative in upper management. Its not just dressing for for success, but politically correct thinking. BG says "the networks tilt left" (p.2) but provides no proof. Are they advocating a Canadian-style health care system? Are they seeking to nationalize the military-industrial complex, or end corporate controlled agriculture? Are they asking for higher income tax rates? Or are they merely presenting "feel good" news to sedate their viewers? Hollywood knows their audiences favor a happy ending; why shouldn't there be "happy news"? BG writes "network news ... steals just about everything from print" (p.25). So they merely echo the news from Establishment leaders like the 'New York Times' or 'Washington Post'. He doesn't tell who controls these newspapers; he sees the trees but not the forest. Page 32 quotes Dan Rather: "you just try to tell me how to report the news". Don't his managers do that every day? Can Dan ever deviate from reading his script on TV? (I once was him apologize to the TV camera when he stumbled over the script he had to recite.) And Dan never uses his Texan accent either! Corporate broadcasts of the news use it as a vehicle for advertising. It must be that a "liberal bias" sells, and other styles don't; the bottom line commands attention. Nothing in this book denies that "liberal bias" reflects the policies of their corporate owners. "The first step in controlling a communicable disease is to determine who is getting it and how" (p.89). Do people catch "liberal bias" by living in small rural towns? Do they catch it from working in urban financial centers like New York, San Francisco, or Atlanta? Do they get it from studies in college? BG needs to document this disorder better. If journalists are more "liberal" than the general public could it be a type of industrial disease? They do learn more about what's happening, and how the news is censored; it could make them more cynical. Chapter 11 has an important and under-reported story: the decline of "child well-being". Does the absence of parents result in poor learning, drug abuse, and other evils? Do corporations profit from working mothers, convenient fast-foods, and remedial schooling? Does the media profit from their advertising? BG says this failure to report is caused by laziness (p.167), but the real answer may be that it would reduce the profits of their advertisers. Page 172 says that children in day care tend to be more aggressive and defiant: argue a lot, demand a lot of attention, act cruelly, slow explosive behavior, talk too much, and get into a lot of fights. (Is this Pavlovian conditioning?) The increasing number of children in early day care exactly coincides with the epidemic of childhood asthma (p.176). The news that day care results in more respiratory tract infections was censored from the newspapers (p.177). BG doesn't ask if this is due to advertisers, he just says the "media elites" kept it hidden!
Rating: Summary: And the point is....? Review: Goldberg offers a potentially fascinating book: an insider speaking out on what's wrong with network reporting. Unfortunately the presentation doesn't live up to the promise. The points he raises on Jennings, Brokaw, Rather and the like could easily apply to conservative counterparts Goldberg apparently sees as more rounded in their reporting. What's more, in a book that demands facts to back up the thesis Goldberg's lack of footnotes or bibliography is a gaping hole. Much of the book amounts to Goldberg venting his spleen over what he sees as media bias and he does offer some examples. The intelligent reader certainly can see Goldberg's point of view, but is left with a nagging question: is that all there is? Ultimately Goldberg's points are awash in a sea of hypocrisy as he champions conservative voices, including the hopelessly biased Rush Limbaugh. Why doesn't Goldberg point out that Limbaugh publicized this book on numerous occassions? If a "liberal" book writer and television reporter engaged in the same relationship Goldberg correctly would call this an example of bias in the media (and Limbaugh--though he may weasel word his way around it--is a member of the media.) There are strong arguments to be made that there is bias in the media. But this book, rife with its own biases and missteps, isn't the tome it purports to be.
Rating: Summary: This is actually Mr. goldstein's poor revange, Review: I was teriblly disapointed, since the cover did not clearly indicate what type of bias I was going to be reading about. I expected to read conservative bias, and was forced to spend my time reading how MR. Goldstein felt about Mr.Dan Rather for the best part of the book, and finally a few poor examples of what the writer found to be evidence of conservative bias. Who cares about the relations between CBS and Mr. Goldstein? why do we have to pay for the pension he is not getting from CBS by buying this half baked book? we have all had had disapointing bosses as well, that does not mean I should write a book with an attractive yet deceiving title to earn money and get back at the people I hate. Finally, I totally disagree with his view of liberalist broadcasting to be an obstruction of truth. If truth means being extreem right is a fact and thus should be accepted and even celebrated, I am sorry, I cant agree .This book is the only book I ever read that made me angry for having baught it .
Rating: Summary: No Kidding! Nothing new! The lefts have it! Review: First off there is nothing new here. The news media is overrun with left wing dribble. That's why I rather listen to NPR or BBC and kind of get the mainstream "real story". The book is an easy read. Far to easy. Most of the book is wining, complaining, and self-justification. Sure Tom and Dan are as tainted as curbside one week old New York City snow but anyone with a clue knows this. Also, the tidbit about opinions of newscasters to "let you know" how you should think about a subject. Just in case you are too ignorant to form your own opinion. I've known some "news" people. Their intelligence is little more than a pet rock. The media is a joke and this guy is just the beginning.
Rating: Summary: Polemic Insiders Account of Liberal Bias Review: Bernard Goldberg's book is well written, with an albiet polemic style that exposes the liberal bias in the broadcast news centers such as ABC, CBS, and NBC. In this paperback version, Goldberg adds a new introduction discussing some of the aftermath after the books's release. He takes great pains to be accurate in proving the liberal media bias by citing statistics by independent reserach groups. Except on a few accounts, he cites names to build his case and gives many anedotal stories to demonstrate the bias for a liberal worldview and what happens to one who opposes the newsanchor TV stars like Dan Rather. His refering to Rather as The Dan (like the mafia The Don) is a little over the top and may have been a little cute if done once or twice, but Goldberg does it to often and this and a couple of other stylistics choices make this book a four star read instead of a five star read. This book is refreshing in that it is honest, factual, and it is done by someone who is hardly a conservative, which shows some people are willing to engage in the dialogue regardless of idealogies. Goldberg's chapters on "Identity Politics" and "Epidemic of Fear" are especially important and well written.
Rating: Summary: Confirms what we have suspected all along. Review: Although the charge of the media being "biased" is not a new one, still, this book is shocking. If the issue were simply "liberals vs. conservatives" this book may not have been all that necessary. But what Mr. Goldberg keenly points out, the story within the story if you will, is how de facto censorship is practiced by the mainstream/elite press. Among other egregious examples are: (1) News magazine shows kill stories that portray minorities in a bad light. (2) News magazine shows seek out whites because whites make up the majority of the audience, hence, "its all about ratings. (3)Reporters are notorious for asking "softball" questions to those with whom they share the same (leftist) political ideology. (4) The label "conservative," "conservative-extremist," and/or "right-wing conservative," are always used in conjunction with someone whose views are right-of-center. A Lexis-Nexus search reveals that similiar labels for "liberals" are virtually never used. Contrary to what some reviewers have opined, I don't think Mr. Goldberg is at all guilty of "sour grapes" or "disloyalty" to his former boss, "The Dan" Rather. Goldberg simply tells it like it is, and, unfortunately for "The Dan" the picture that is portrayed is of an anchorman who is venal, petty, thin-skinned, and a lot like the old Ted Baxter character on the Mary Tyler Moore Show, i.e. he has a massive, to-a-fault, ego. I say "BRAVO" to Mr. Goldberg for having the guts to tell it like it is. For the sake of sane, honest, and rational debate in the public forum of ideas something like this needed to be done. For too long the "Dans, Toms, and Peters" hegemony has gone unchallenged, and their contempt for anything and anyone outside the "New York-Washington Axis" has been ignored. Bias is a great read. Truly, the emperors at the networks have no clothes.
Rating: Summary: Good. Review: Good book. Worth reading, if you're interested in insights (and insides) on how the press edits your thought.
Rating: Summary: Mindblowing Review: A must read for anyone who wants to know why our American newsmedia is dominated with left wing bias. I was shocked to learn that the major news groups such as NBC, CBS, ABC all distort statistics and figures to further the left's agenda. This book isn't written by a right wing radical, its written by one of the left's own. One thing is for certain, you will never look at the evening news the same.
Rating: Summary: "So true it's hardly worth discussing anymore..." Review: Bernard Goldberg has written a good, truthful book from the standpoint of an insider--a well-known insider to all of us, with nearly 30 years in front of the camera--telling us, as he says himself, that the TV network news has a "liberal bias [that] is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore."
So, why is he discussing it? Well, for one thing he wrote a 'whistle-blower' Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal back in 1996 admitting to that well-known bias, that cost him his job at CBS News and that incurred the undying hatred of Dan Rather, of whose own bias, Goldberg says, Rather is not even aware. The obvious bias of the media elite, and the reason behind it, is a subject that I have wondered about in my own book, "Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance." Why are the vast majority of the elite media icons so liberal? Is it because it is the political disease of all urbanites, or because of their liberal professors in the journalism schools? Goldberg has perhaps hit the nail on the head. He thinks it is because everyone with whom they associate think alike, and they are not even aware of their bias, but think that they are simply "middle of the road," because they simply do not meet any other view in their circle of friends and acquaintances, and because they see everyone who is conservative as "right-wing nuts," a term that includes everyone who does not agree with their leftist world-view. Goldberg gives an example of such provincialism--he quotes New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael, who in 1972 couldn't figure how Richard Nixon had won the presidency. "I can't believe it!" she said. "I don't know a single person who voted for him!" Nixon carried forty-nine of the fifty states to McGovern's one. Goldberg's point, and I think it is accurate, is that--as New Yorker's tend to think of themselves as the center of the universe, and everyplace else as 'flyover country,' and as John Podhoretz has said, they "can easily go through life never meeting anybody who has a thought different from their own," so it is with The Mighty Journalism Elite. There is no plot, no conscious conspiracy, they simply think alike. As several polls have shown, 98-percent of them consistently vote for the most liberal candidate in every election. They are even more liberal than their constituency. His point is well taken. All this from a man who, as Goldberg says of himself, "I have never voted for a Republican candidate for president in my entire life!" As for Goldberg's book, BIAS, if it has a flaw it is probably that it is, perhaps understandably, too polemical. He paints an ugly picture of Rather, not only as a biased liberal, but also as an intolerant, mean-spirited, arrogant bully whom even the network executives fear. His treatment of Connie Chung (because she got more air-time than Rather during the Oklahoma City bombing incident, during which time he was on vacation) was indefensible if accurately portrayed, and caused her to be fired--all due to his jealous egotism. So, much of this book--particularly the first part--comes off as primarily a personal defense and an apparent attempt to justify what many of his co-workers characterize as disloyalty. But, as the book develops, and he expands on his thesis--that the elite media is biased toward the liberal view, on the social and cultural issues as well as politically, the case he builds is pretty much inarguable. But then, it has been so obvious that, as Bernie Goldberg says, "it's hardly worth discussing anymore." Joseph (Joe) Pierre
author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
|